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.
Recent Comments