Skyraider II

[quemerford]

Used to see US government-operated the Ayres S2Ts in Central America in the 1980s, operated as 2-seat drug sprayers (defoliant), so they also have a long pseudo-military heritage too.

[Ken]

History will judge if this was a worthwhile program. The idea was born in the mid-to-late 2010's when overwatch in Afghanistan and Africa was being conducted by a variety of platforms working in unison: drones, King Airs, U-28's, A-10's, tankers, etc. The idea was to find one platform that would do a credible job replacing all of the platforms for overwatch, ISR, C2, comm link, and, if necessary, strike, in lower threat environments.

I ran the numbers on the A-10, A-1H, OA-1K, and several competitors. When considering loiter time, armor, ordnance weight, number of pylons, etc - of the aircraft that entered the contract competition, the OA-1K was more capable by a noticeable margin. The fact that its wings are removable for transport is a plus.

In very round numbers, it takes two OA-1K's to carry the load of an A-1, and two A-1's to carry the load of an A-10. The most interesting aspect is the power and fuel efficiency of the R-3350 when compared to available turboprop engines. In some categories, the A-1 is still the most capable airplane, albeit with a recip.

People want to see this as an A-10, A-1 replacement based on its name, when it really has very little in common mission-wise. Others, after a superficial look, only seem to ask why the DoD would buy a "crop duster". Again, I think time will tell if this idea of a multi-role platform works as intended, as I doubt that situations where something like this can be used will be going away anytime soon.

Ken

[Ken]

double post

[sandiego89]

History will judge if this was a worthwhile program..... Again, I think time will tell if this idea of a multi-role platform works as intended, as I doubt that situations where something like this can be used will be going away anytime soon.

Ken

I see it as a continuation of the hi-low mix that has been around since at least the 1960's. DoD (and pork wielding Congress) has been reluctant to buy anything that was not useful in a day one peer conflict, and has mostly ignored low intensity capability. This resulted in hugely expensive and capable aircraft and weapons systems doing low-intensity work in more permissive environments, when a "crop duster" could have done the job very well:

Multimillion dollar jets plinking $10,000 trucks in SW Asia

B-1's using up much of their fatigue life orbiting Afghanistan, when a biz jet with the right sensors and smart weapons
could have done it much more cheaply.

Tomahawk and other missiles on suspected rebel encampments.

etc etc