After reading an article on the front page about the Czech trainers/light fighters I am supriesed that more major powers do not employ light fighter like USAF?
Does the US definition of light attack differ from everyone else and they consider AV-8, A-10, F-16 to be light attack fighters (AC-130? too?).
I read about the costs involved in Afganistan and Iraq to have F-15, B-1 et all circling overhead waiting to be called upon to drop a JDAM or the need for low-speed for proper straffing runs. Why dont we see more light attack fighters? Right now you have $80million planes circling overhead waiting to drop an $80,000 JDam causing wear and tear and extra expense for aircraft that should be saved for more important missions.
I suppose there are several possible answers.
1. Airforce fighter pilots wanting a big part of the budget to buy high-tech high price aircraft
2. Smaller airforces (ie. Non-USA) can not afford multiple types of airframes so they stick with multi-role.
3. Like I mentioned earlier other aircraft like F-16, Av-8, A-10 and possiblely helicopters already fill this role (and now UAVs).
I read reports that the US was planning on bring back some OV-10 Broncos back in to service for Iraq but I have not heard any more about that.
I am still suprised there is not more interest in low cost light attack aircraft but most major airforces dont seem to be interested? Like Brazil' Super Tucano or some civillian light aircraft for spotting/fire support with a small armament. Or trainer type aircraft like T-50 to support troops in areas where air dominance has been obtained.
Armed trainers could also act as reserve aircraft for airforces in time of war.
Conversion of trainers/civillian aircraft should be simplified by use of litening pod or Sniper pod et all.
Any thoughts? Comments?
Does the US definition of light attack differ from everyone else and they consider AV-8, A-10, F-16 to be light attack fighters (AC-130? too?).
I read about the costs involved in Afganistan and Iraq to have F-15, B-1 et all circling overhead waiting to be called upon to drop a JDAM or the need for low-speed for proper straffing runs. Why dont we see more light attack fighters? Right now you have $80million planes circling overhead waiting to drop an $80,000 JDam causing wear and tear and extra expense for aircraft that should be saved for more important missions.
I suppose there are several possible answers.
1. Airforce fighter pilots wanting a big part of the budget to buy high-tech high price aircraft
2. Smaller airforces (ie. Non-USA) can not afford multiple types of airframes so they stick with multi-role.
3. Like I mentioned earlier other aircraft like F-16, Av-8, A-10 and possiblely helicopters already fill this role (and now UAVs).
I read reports that the US was planning on bring back some OV-10 Broncos back in to service for Iraq but I have not heard any more about that.
I am still suprised there is not more interest in low cost light attack aircraft but most major airforces dont seem to be interested? Like Brazil' Super Tucano or some civillian light aircraft for spotting/fire support with a small armament. Or trainer type aircraft like T-50 to support troops in areas where air dominance has been obtained.
Armed trainers could also act as reserve aircraft for airforces in time of war.
Conversion of trainers/civillian aircraft should be simplified by use of litening pod or Sniper pod et all.
Any thoughts? Comments?