In the most recent issue of subscription-only Inside the Air Force, Marcus Weisgerber writes that several high-ranking US Air Force generals oppose using a manned turboprop to fight insurgents.
Weisgerber quotes Lt. Gen. Donald Hoffman, the USAF's top-ranking acquisition official:
“We can rebuild the P-51, great airplane. All we need is you, you, you and you,” he said referring to several reporters in front of him after an April 9 Senate Armed Services airland subcommittee hearing, “to go fly it into the threat zone.”It's a good quote, but it stirs one of my pet USAF-peeves. Here it goes:
Okay, general, why do USAF pilots get special treatment? Why can't they be exposed to the same level of risk as your average army, marine corps and -- for that matter -- air force helicopter pilot, who fly into and around the threat zone everyday in an aircraft that is slower, bigger and, thus, less survivable than a turboprop fighter? Also, while we're on the subject, how come USAF pilots can't be exposed to the same level of risk as the (predominantly) soldiers or marines driving on Iraqi and Afghan roads in a vehicle as exposed as a basic, up-armoured Humvee?
Yes, flying a turboprop into battle is less safe than riding an F-16 and requires more guts than possessed by your average (blush) aerospace reporter, but if that's what it takes to do the mission then why is there any argument? Is the grunt loading into an MRAP bound for a ride down Ambush Alley allowed to take a raincheck after deciding the odds are a little high?
You can argue that an unmanned aircraft is more effective in the same role. It may or may not be true, but it is a fair point for debate.
Comparing the relative risk of manned turboprops is not only irrelevant. It's unbecoming for a military officer.
on April 22, 2008 1:29 PM | Reply
Steve, it's obvious that a Cessna Caravan with .50 firing out the cargo door is a better COIN aircraft than any jet fighter ever built. But it can't overturn 50 years of elitist zoomie, "right stuff" culture.
on April 22, 2008 2:46 PM | Reply
I'm surprised they made the argument based on risk to the pilot. It's not like fighter pilots are known for being risk-averse.
Hawker Beechcraft has been pushing the concept of a CAS T-6B for sale to the AF via a variety of channels. It makes sense for them because JPATS is running down, and once it's gone the very valuable T-6 production line isn't going to be worth very much.
But with the AF already having 350 very powerful A-10 CAS aircraft in its inventory, it's hard to see a big need for a fleet of turboprop attack aircraft in Iraq or Afghanistan. What does the T-6 bring to the table that the A-10 doesn't already do well? Bigger bomb load, more speed, sensor packages, armor. It's already there.
on April 25, 2008 6:57 AM | Reply
A better argument is that a dedicated COIN or CAS aircraft - the roles are not the same but overlap - still needs a lot of what a fighter carries. Laser targeting, EO/IR imaging, J-class weapons, large-format displays, ideally HMDs. Like the helo or transport aircraft, it also needs self-defense systems.
So what do you have at the end of the day? Something that costs rather less than a fighter but needs fighter cover if there's any air threat, and can't do all the other things that fighters can, like long-range strike, air defense and NTISR.
on April 27, 2008 2:09 AM | Reply
Steve,
I wrote my post then read yours or I would have linked, I agree, hope you are doing OK!
on May 4, 2008 3:54 AM | Reply
A good A/C to cover the guys on the ground is a necessity and if the AF isn't going to do the job with an A/C that is suitable, give the job and the A/C to the ARMY! To hell with the "it's our turf" B.S metality of those over paid bozo's at the pentigon. It's about time that the AF realize that they are not the only people that understand how to use close air support. If they don't have or cannot find people to fly those missions, I know other brances can and are more than willing to do it.
As far as an A/C to do it with. The A-10 is great and the Army could easily fly and maintain it. However, I have always wondered why the twin-engine "Bronco" disappeard? We used them in Viet Nam and they did a great job for us. It had good visibility, a more than enough ordnance load and a TOT that did the job. Why not re-look at that platform? We managed to dig the SANDY out of the boneyard for Viet Nam and got a lot of use out of them. Perhaps we should consider dong it again with another great A/C.
I'm sure it wasn't all that expensive to produce and it worked well. So it gets some up-dating. Perhap$ that is the problem. It isn't expensive enough in that Gold Plated world of the AF. It's won't help line of the retirement pockets of a few guys in the funny 5 sided building.
As far as te Bronco though, it worked once,... It'll work again if someone gives it a try.
JD
on July 21, 2009 5:02 PM | Reply
The OV-10 Bronco was a great COIN aircraft, and the Marine Corps used it as such in Vietnam, but was officially "encouraged" to transfer all of theirs to civilian agencies after the war, and still has no replacement to fulfill the mission. If you could get them back from the bowels of the Federal Government or restart the production line and then bolt on all of the "gee-whiz" stuff they are putting on the Tucanos it would still do the job. Plus they have rough field/STOL capability and that would make them ideal for Afghanistan.