« Army quietly deactivates its small-team reconnaissance units - News - Stripes | Main | World of Warships- Rusty's Best Montana, and mine too! »



Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Paul L. Quandt

See comment below, in previous post.

Paul L. Quandt

ron snyder

I no longer trust the Air Force to make decisions that are in America's best interest. Hard to say about my former service, but the adage about the Fighter Mafia is true. The USAF has been at the front in cheerfully adopting the Social Justice Warrior actions, happy to serve as a Test Bed for those destructive actions to our military strength. If the USAF had their way the A-10 would be history.

A detailed action plan to dissolve the USAF and fold its functions into the Army and/or the Navy would be welcome. Both the Army and the Navy also need to be taken to task also.

Wray Johnson

More culture than acquisition and procurement. Even in Air Force SOF the emphasis is on high tech, leading edge. That is, except for the 6th SOS, which I (and two colleagues) stood up in 1994. We fought for off-the-shelf tech such as the AT-6 back then but couldn't get past AFSOC and USSOCOM pig-headedness Plus USASOC thought we were trying to draw funds from the MH-47). We were accused of trying to create a "junkyard air force" and a flying club. In the end we had to lease the aircraft we got (except for a couple of old UH-1N helos en route to the bone yard). The Super-T and AT-6 would be ideal for the Marine Corps and Air Force SOF. That means it won't happen. But you are spot on, Star Baby.


What? The F-35 is not suitable? I am shocked!

Might I suggest the A-10 would be suitable?

Does anyone else remember the F-5?

Chris Green

The Marines will have to face the reality of this because they cannot afford to lose what few F-35B's they can purchase at a forward deployed base such as the 8 or so Harriers destroyed on the ground in Afghanistan a few years back. Bring on the OV-10s.... the brits would be smart to deploy some of them too off their new carriers i.e. Libya operation.


In any conflict, no matter how hard you try to protect your assets, there will be losses. Where do the replacements come from and how much does they cost? More and cheaper pickup trucks have better options than expensive, complicated, multi faceted Ferraris. The Pentagon has all the lessons learned in files on old airframes that were successful in their day. I keep thinking about the old A-4, light, relatively inexpensive but effective. Or the OV-10, as mentioned. Build them, trick them out with todays cheaper tech and put them in play. You can still do all the countermeasures to protect them. Take as few losses as possible, but get all the benefits utilizing the volume of assets from off the shelf, tried and true players.
But NewThink is drones, so the discussions are specious.


I would echo the lack of diverse acft. Specialty aircraft kept the air force agile. From the mud to heaven. Not any more. Shucks, even the airshows are getting lame. Only so many times for thunder, it's getting where the car has a better performance. And I like watching them. Always wondered why they never mention the old t-38, updated, better engines, that would be neat.


Durn Google, CAF!

Mad Marsupial

Desert Air Force.
Cab rank system.

Not new...


The A-4 had many fine points, but it wasn't all that. If I recall, it only ever had iron sights as part of Ed Heinemann's "keep it simple" philosophy. Not a good choice.

I must yet again remind folks that simple & cheap isn't always better. The B-18 Bolo was simple & cheap compared to the B-17 (the former was nearly half the cost of the latter) but it turned out to be militarily useless.

Mustangs & Thunderbolts were were cheaper & simpler than F-4s or F-8s, and were very effective for their era, but no one to my knowledge ever suggested re-starting the F-51 or P-47 line.

The A-4 is in a similar situation. It was a great plane for the 1950s and 1960s, but we're well into the second decade of the 21st century. It's time to let go. :)

To a certain extent, the nostalgia, while pleasant, is a waste of time. The real lesson lies in Brad's rant about how long it took to buy a freaking pistol.

If DoD let strategy dictate acquisition, we would have (as someone else observed) a whole fleet of Super Tucanos or Texan IIs a long time ago.

jon spencer

The A-29, AT-6 and the OV-10 all should be able to take-off and land on the Navy's helicopter carriers without the need for arresting wires and catapults.

If they did need to use a catapult for full load launches a modified and updated WW-2 Type P-Mk 6 catapult should work.
That catapult launched thousands of aircraft and worked as intended.

Captain Ned

If a fully-loaded '60s-vintage C-130 could safely land AND take off from CV-59 USS Forrestal without wires or catapults, a Tucano or a new-build max OV-10 could do it easily on a Gator Freighter.

I'd love to see what a C-130J could do on a Nimitz.


Once more, with feeling: P47 with a full load of SDBs and .50 cal.

Army aviation. Each corps gets a squadron as an asset they can push down to provide direct support to BCTs in low-intensity environments. Have them operable as 2- or 4-ship sections, or deploy as the entire squadron for GS theater support.


Just bring back the Army Air Corps and get rid of the USAF.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Become a Fan