Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Why not bring back the Skyraider? Its cheaper and easier for COIN
I think you are confusing terms. COIN is counter-insurgency warfare. It is NOT close support in a battle against an opponent with a a 1st class (or even 2nd class ) air defense system.
If your opponents are limited to 12.7mm/14.5mm MGs on predominately single mounts using simple iron sights ( no optics let alone radar) AND your targets are predominantly "soft" targets then a lot of cheap air craft with good load lifting ability can work fairly well. Against multiple 23mm and up cannon on powered mounts (not a twin bolted/welded onto a Toyota) with sophisticated sights and/or radar (even if just a warning radar) and missiles, the cheap and cheerful aircraft start getting a lot less cheerful and a lot more expensive in terms of planes and pilots lost for a given amount of target effect.
Saving money on the airplane and then mounting multiple $100,000 missiles on it seems to be a budget conflict.
I have to disagree with that statement. This is from "Hs 129 Panzerjager!" by Martin Pegg:
Page 27: "....in April [1938], final development began and the P.46 received the official designation "Hs 129". Designed by Henschel's chief designer, Dipl. Ing. Friederich Nicolaus, the Hs 129 was a cantilever low-wing monoplane developed entirely for attacking ground targets including armoured fighting vehicles."
I think you are confusing terms. COIN is counter-insurgency warfare. It is NOT close support in a battle against an opponent with a a 1st class (or even 2nd class ) air defense system.
If your opponents are limited to 12.7mm/14.5mm MGs on predominately single mounts using simple iron sights ( no optics let alone radar) AND your targets are predominantly "soft" targets then a lot of cheap air craft with good load lifting ability can work fairly well. Against multiple 23mm and up cannon on powered mounts (not a twin bolted/welded onto a Toyota) with sophisticated sights and/or radar (even if just a warning radar) and missiles, the cheap and cheerful aircraft start getting a lot less cheerful and a lot more expensive in terms of planes and pilots lost for a given amount of target effect.
Saving money on the airplane and then mounting multiple $100,000 missiles on it seems to be a budget conflict.
Why not bring back the Skyraider? Its cheaper and easier for COIN
Right, when is the last time we fought a state actor that required the A-10? We are mostly fighting COIN and the Skyraider could do what the A-10 is in those wars for cheaper.
Except you have the A-10s in inventory and service (with parts and trained mechanics) and the "new" COIN aircraft would have to purchased. SO what would be cheaper? less fuel burn?
Unless you are talking about a turbo prop "conversion" of the Skyraider there aren't enough R-3350 engines and parts to support even a small number of of combat aircraft and trying to put the R-3350 back into production would not be cheap. Finding the gasoline it needs to run on won't be easy either.
the ZSU-23-4 "Shilka" is likely to pop up just about anywhere. Especially in the mid-east, how many still have functioning radars may be subject to question.
Shoulder fired AA missiles are fairly common these days compared to the 1960s-70s. Even the second generation missiles are quite common.
It is rather doubtful that the A-10 would be put back in production either.
Last one was built about 30 years ago (which makes a pup compared to the B-52s) but the tooling is probably long gone, not to mention resurrecting 30 year old designs rather ignores whatever knowledge has been gained in the last 30 years.
Anybody really want to try and surf the web on a Radio Shack TRS-80
Getting down and dirty Skyraider style is also probably long gone when you combine both the higher sensitivity to casualties (lost pilots) and the prevalence of smart munitions with longer stand off distances. IF you are not going to use drones there is little reason to put a new plane (and pilot/crew) within HMG range of the insurgent targets given modern sensors. Yes sensors cost money but pilots cost over a million dollars to train and make wonderful propaganda tools if captured.
Also I was just hearing that they are losing controllers who decide to leave the service faster than they can get replacements.
Getting down and dirty Skyraider style is also probably long gone when you combine both the higher sensitivity to casualties (lost pilots) and the prevalence of smart munitions with longer stand off distances. IF you are not going to use drones there is little reason to put a new plane (and pilot/crew) within HMG range of the insurgent targets given modern sensors. Yes sensors cost money but pilots cost over a million dollars to train and make wonderful propaganda tools if captured.
Where are they going - Amazon?!
Once again, COIN is NOT CAS, although CAS can be part of a COIN operation.
Insurgents today expect armed helicopters and strike aircraft, unlike the Guerrillas of the 1950s/60s. They are better often equipped and financed (trained may be another story). In the Mid-east you can have both sides (or even a 3rd side) ALL equipped with ex-government arms including AA weapons, artillery, tanks and light armored vehicles. Maintenance of such equipment, even if government hands, might be a bit suspect compared to western standards but you are betting your pilots lives on it if you try buying aircraft that are too cheap. It might only take one "runner" out of 5-6 units captured to take-out one aircraft.
Look at the flap concerning the Jordanian pilot lost.
Sure, but we are talking about a replacement for the A-10, which only conducts CAS, so what is going to be the cheap alternative?