The A-10 (terrific gun platform) thread got me thinking about all the money wasted by the DoD on the newest and most complicated weapons systems. So many of them are just kludges that could be replaced by simplier, more robust, and proven platforms.

How about a light, cheap, attack aircraft? Anyone remember the A-37 Dragonfly made by.....Cessna?



Why does it always have to be more sophisticated?

General characteristics

Crew: 1-2
Length: 28 ft 3.4 in (8.62 m)
Wingspan: 35 ft 10.3 in (10.93 m (including tip tanks))
Height: 8 ft 10.3 in (2.70 m)
Wing area: 183.9 ft² (17.09 m²)
Empty weight: 6,211 lb (2,817 kg)
Loaded weight: 11,994 lb (5,440 kg)
Max. takeoff weight: 14,000 lb (6,350 kg)
Powerplant: 2 × General Electric J85-GE-17A turbojet, 2,850 lbf (12.7 kN) each

Performance

Maximum speed: 507 mph (440 kn, 816 km/h) at 16,000 ft
Cruise speed: 489 mph (425 kn, 787 km/h) at 25,000 ft
Stall speed: 113 mph (98 kn, 182 km/h)
Range: 920 mi (800 nmi, 1,480 km)
Combat radius: 460 mi (400 nmi, 740 km) with 4,100 lb warload
Service ceiling: 41,765 ft (12,730 m)
Rate of climb: 6,990 ft/min (35.5 m/s)
Wing loading: 65 lb/ft² (318 kg/m²)
Thrust/weight: 0.47

Armament

Guns: 1× .308 in (7.62 mm) GAU-2B/A minigun with 1500 rounds (mounted in nose)
Hardpoints: 8 under-wing with a capacity of 1,230 kg
Gun pods: SUU-11/A (1× 7.62 mm M134 minigun per pod), GPU-2/A (1× 20 mm M197 cannon per pod), 30 mm DEFA cannon
Rockets: four pods, each with seven 70 mm/2.75-inch rockets (Mk 4/Mk 40 FFAR rockets in a LAU-32/A, LAU-59, or LAU-68 launcher) or (Mk 66/WAFAR rockets in a LAU-131 launcher)
Missiles: AIM-9 Sidewinder
Bombs: 500 lb (241 kg) Mk.82 (×8), SUU-14 bomblet dispenser
Other: Napalm tanks, SUU-25/A Flare Dispenser

__________________
Who watches the watchers?

I worked around quite a few of those little beauties. The pilots seemed to love them.

I understand that the travel pods hold more than one set of golf clubs. Now that's multi-mission.

__________________
Music/Sports/Beer fan

The OV 10 Bronco was another. Armed up, either one looked really menacing.

I still think, though, that any light attack aircraft should be built with armor, redundancy and survivability in mind.

__________________
"He was kinda funny lookin'"

Yes, the travel pods were a huge hit with the aircrews. PITA for maintenance though as they tended to leak.....

__________________
Who watches the watchers?

No argument from me on either point. If I recall correctly the OV10 could also drop 4-5 Airborne troops in a pinch.

__________________
Who watches the watchers?

Fighter plane Air Force pilots from what I've read
want only the fastest, whiz-bang stuff.

I've read how many shunned the Skyraider, the Warthog
because they couldn't reach the stratosphere in seconds,
burning half the fuel capacity in the process.

It's a breed that totally abhors the spreading use of
drones flown by pilots in bunkers a continent away.

It's the "top gun" mentality.

Hopefully member A-37 sees this as he was a Dragonfly driver.

__________________
Music/Sports/Beer fan

I got a flight in a T-37 (what the A 3-7 was built-on) for an Airman of the Month, one time. Got to make some turns myself in it. Since it's/was the first training plane for flight school, it is VERY forgiving.

Hows about this ???
UAE Special Ops Aircraft Come Out Of The Shadows | Defense News: Aviation International News

"It's a breed that totally abhors the spreading use of drones flown by pilots in bunkers a continent away."

I wonder why? Maybe it's because drones don't get decorations and promotions. And they are usually not flown by pilots, at least not in the normal sense. Kids who are good at video games do a good job of learning what is needed to fly a drone from the ground. Here at Randolph AFB is the place the USAF starts them.


Personal feeling. In 15 years or less there will probably be many out-of-work USAF (and possibly airline) pilots. Autonomous technology is really taking off for land vehicles and it will extend to aviation. But currently there is a shortage of them.

BTW, there is currently some work going on to convert the T-6 (turboprop trainer) into a ground support aircraft.

They abhor drones because they won't get to fly and there will be no reason for officer pilots. Teenagers in their bedroom with a joystick will be better drone pilots. Many say that the last USAF pilot has already been born and the AF wants to protect its rice bowl.

Mather AFB CA. The large hanger in the background is still there operated by Mather Aviation.

You may very well be correct, but I, for one, have great doubts about that.

Now, will there be far fewer pilots, most likely; HOWEVER, there will always be missions, etc., that will require someone, a person, in the seat (of the aircraft, not a thousand miles away with a joystick), willing and able to handle the situation as it unfolds in front of them.

That's why they make Marine pilots. If their job is protecting ground troops, they are more than happy to do it.

__________________
"He was kinda funny lookin'"

They have to be able to take HITS and come back. If not, the lessons we've learned from the A-10 are lost on us.

That's why I'm not into converting civilian planes into combat aircraft. The honeycomb wing/tail structures have proven themselves in minimizing damage and still allowing the plane to operate. The titanium armor and redundancy of systems IMHO need to be built from the ground up.

__________________
"He was kinda funny lookin'"

I would like to see one of those drones land on an aircraft carrier, at night, in a 25 foot sea, like Navy and Marine pilots do! ? ! ? On second thought, I don't want to SEE that happen!
jcelect

I always liked these: Folland Gnat - Wikipedia

28 foot wingspan, 6400 lbs. gross weight, 2-30mm cannon, mach 0.95, cute as a bug.

The travel pods were empty napalm canisters with a hinged loading door cut into the side.

Typical loads: Golf clubs, BX items, and luggage. Occasionally filled with small crates of lobsters from a New England lobster run. The low temperature at 25,000' kept them cold. The base personnel who ordered them would gather at Base Ops when I called "15 minutes out". What a way to make a living!

They used Gnats in making the 'Hot Shots' movies. They are cool. I'd like to have one in my driveway, or a T-38.

__________________
"He was kinda funny lookin'"

The days of manned flight are coming to an end.

It is only a matter of time until a lot of aircraft are drones. Or can be flown by both pilot and machine.

It is a matter of cost and mission.

Somewhere i have a b&w photo of a F104 with all the armentment it was capable of carrying and it was very similar to this one. I took th t photo back in 1962.

__________________
H Richard
SWCA1967 SWHF244

That's me climbing into the right seat, April or May 1983. Navigator students sat in what was normally the instructor pilot's seat as that panel didn't have the complete complement of instruments. We would have to lean across the throttles to view the RMI when doing fix-to-fix calculations.
We would get three practice flights in Airmanship, one which was a "acrobatics" flight, and then a check ride. We wouldn't fly the Tweet again until the end of the course in visual low level, another three flights and a checkride.

Another from earlier days when we wore 1505s.
.

A little before my time!

I'm afraid most, if not all, of the suggested aircraft only make good training targets for most of the modern SAM systems. Only the A-10 with its robust airframe has any chance of survival.

At the last Nellis airshow, they did a routine showing A-10s and F-35s as close air support. I immediately noticed that the A-10 could turn tighter and maintain visual contact with the "operations area". The original A-10 spec required that it stay within a certain radius due to European terrain and weather. The F-35s stayed a bit higher and turned wider.

Personally, I think the F-35 at low level is a crazy idea. The aircraft uses fuel as a coolant and in some of its hydraulic systems. This HAS to make it vulnerable to AAA/small arms fire at low level. It is my understanding that the F-105 suffered terrible losses at low level due to its complexity and resulting vulnerability to small arms fire. The single engine design probably did not help, either.

There are many good things written about the F-35 and its capabilities, particularly in relation to its sensors and their integration. But I just don't see it as a "mud fighter". Current USAF policy seems to have two distinct themes, stealth and speed. An upgraded A-10 has neither. The fact that it still does a great job must cause much teeth grinding amongst the policy makers.

__________________
Release the Kraken

The simple fix for the A-10 is to transfer it from the USAF to the Army and let the Army fly it, just like we used to fly the fixed wing OV-1 Mohawk.