A COIN Aircraft Comeback

[unhappycamper]

A COIN Aircraft Comeback

This blog has repeatedly asked the question: Why doesn't the US Air Force operate a counter-insurgency (COIN) aircraft? And I don't mean an F-16 with an M61 Vulcan strafing a ground target, but an ugly-looking, turboprop-powered, low and slow aircraft like the A-1 Skyraider, which was used so effectively in Vietnam.



It (finally) appears that the USAF has been asking itself the same question, and an article published today in the service's official Air & Space Power Journal makes the following conclusion:

"Realistically, the new right-tech platform may be an unmanned aerial system, but to create the opening for a long-term enabling plan, the USAF should first develop a strategy for exportable COIN technologies. If the F-20 legacy still applies, it also means that the USAF should operate these platforms in its own inventory."

The author's chain of reasoning goes like this:

1. The USAF should remain focused on the non-COIN fight and let its lesser-funded coalition partners do the COIN dirty work.


Rest of article with an interesting discussion afterwards: http://www.defensetech.org/archives/003887.html?wh=wh

[class2068]

1. The A-1D was not planned for COIN...

... but rather, was a left-over from WW II planning. WWII ended before the A-1 could be manufactured and put into use as a carrier-based attack aircraft. Then it was quickly obsoleted by jets beginning in the late 1940s and early 1950s. So there they were, a bunch of A-1s sitting around with no practical use when Vietnam heated up and suddenly there was a use for them in COIN, SAR, and close-in ground support. They were unintentionally the wrong airplane in the right place at the right time. They were never designed for any of those roles. Sometimes such happy coincidences happen. Most often, not. If today one designed a COIN airplane for the next war, it would arrive 12 years late and be the wrong airplane for that time.