Philosophical Question/ Discussion

[Coota0]

I'd like to throw out a question I've heard discussed by arm-chair generals and a few professionals, just to get the opinions here:
Should the Army look into more fixed wing aircraft including armed fixed wing aircraft?

[Dan]

I think so... of course im just an 20 yr old who doing rotc... but trying to fly after college... I think it would be the smart thing to do. Actually I learned that during WWII the army really supplied most of the airpower present at that time.

[mcm114]

Back in WW2 there was no separate Air Force. It was still part of the Army, and called the USAAC (US Army Air Corps).

I don't think it makes a lot of sense to overlap the missions of Army and USAF aviation. But, I like the way the Marines use their own aviation for close air support (especially the Harrier). And of course, the Army does as well, but its limited to rotary wing only. I would like to see the Army take over the A-10 program, (which the AF will probably phase out anyway, to make room for fancy new F-22's, the JSF, and whatever else they're spending our tax dollars on at Area 51.) I always liked the A-10, it's ugly and slow, but it's built like a dump truck, and has a huge ordinance capacity. I think it would be an easy and cheap way for the Army to expand close-air support capability. (The C-130 Spectre gunship would be a good one to take over as well, for the same reasons.)

[Coota0]

In my opinion I could see the Army looking to a fixed wing solution to CAS. I think the USAF is getting to a point much like the one in the 1950's that led to Attack Helicopters. In the 50's the USAF was more concerned about high-speed fighters and nuclear capable bombers, the Army couldn't get the CAS it required. Today the USAF is moving to more high-tech fighters that are not built for CAS but are supposed to replace the current CAS aircraft. With the F-35 and the F-16 you can't get the same type of low-level high loiter time that an A-10 or a propellor driven craft can provide, while the Apaches and Kiowas are great at CAS a fixed wing aircraft can carrier a heavier load and fly higher during the ingress and egress to the target area meaning that the SAMs, especially IR SAMs, that are dangerous to rotary wing aircraft can be avoided except for in the target area. The Army could use either a new type of low-level CAS aircraft are use the A-10B or another upgrade or possibly work with the USMC to develop a follow on for the AV-8 (the last reports on the F-35 didn't sound much like what the USMC wanted) A major negative to the A-10 is the need for larger fixed runways, a Helicopter can land anywhere, a jet engine is very relaible unless you pick up a rock in your intake (not a prblem really with the high mounting on the A-10) as well as a need for the new equipment and personel to keep the aircraft maintained. I believe rather than taking hand-me-downs from the USAF, a joint project with the Marines for a S/VTOL aircraft would better fit the Army's requirements as well as makeing the Army more autonmous from the USAF and other services for fixed-wing CAS, while making the Army more flexible in it's deployment ability.

[Dan]

[Coota0]

I know the Army has some fixed wing aircraft, but i don't know exactky what kind. They are a combination of small cargo aircraft and VIP aircraft (stuff to fly generals around in) mostly prop driven.

[CChambliss]

Way back in the 1960's the Army was gettting into fixed wing in a big way. The OV-1 Mohawk was originally a joint Army/Marine venture, and designed around a pretty good weapons load. Also, the Army was involved the the original Harrier (P1127) tests (this was a 3 nation program). The Cheyene was rocking along. For support, the Army was flying the C-7 Caribu, and a wide variety of liasion and utility single and multi engine aircraft. Then someone started thinking the Army should adopt the Fiat G-91 Fighter form Italy as a close air support aircraft, and it really hit the fan.
Considering the conflict in SE Asia was starting to heat up, and the budget dollars were starting to get a bit thin, all the political infighting in Congress, the Army in effect was "banned" from the fixed wing combat aircraft role, and even "lost" the C-7 Caribu to the USAF. Shortly after, the Cheyene Program died, and enter the AH-1 Cobra , Vietnam etc.
Unofficially, (very unofficially-may be more myth than fact) A couple of years ago I hard the USAF really wants out of the "mud moving" business and the A-10's. There was talk of even letting the Army have them. However, the government budget types decided that yes, the USAF could give the A-10's to the Army, but they would also have to give up the manpower slots and the budget dollars, and the AF decided no way they were going to give up slots and bucks. Again, this may have been someone's fantasy, I have nothing on paper to support this.
Cliff
_________________
Cliff A. Chambliss

FOR MAXIMUM ATTENTION IT'S HARD TO BEAT A GOOD BIG MISTAKE.

[Coota0]

Interesting, I didn't know all of that. Was the A-37 an Army bird too?

[CChambliss]

I don't know about the A-37 ever being slottted for the Army. (At the time this would have happened I was otherwise occupied in RVN with the 11ACR). However, during the early days of the conflict, there were many interesting ideas. The USAF acquired A-1 Skyraiders from the NAvy, On Mark Corp re-engined and strengthened the wings of the Douglas B-26 for the AF, the OV-10 Bronco was born (Again as a multi service aircraft but the 4 internal 20 mm guns ran into the prohibition for the Army to have combat capable fixed wing a/c so it too went to the AF (who quickly got rid of it)). The most interesting was Piper Aircraft actually proposed and getting old P-51 Mustangs, putting a turbo prop engine up front, and letting the Army have them as CAS A/c. Piper actually built up a couple of flying examples, but the budget battles of 1964-1967 killed this project too.
_________________
Cliff A. Chambliss

FOR MAXIMUM ATTENTION IT'S HARD TO BEAT A GOOD BIG MISTAKE.