GrogHeads Forum

History, Reference, Research, and GrogTalk => Organizations and Equipment => Topic started by: eyebiter on May 18, 2012, 04:12:02 AM

Title: .
Post by: eyebiter on May 18, 2012, 04:12:02 AM
.
Title: Re: Afghanistan Light Air Support controversy
Post by: bayonetbrant on May 18, 2012, 05:29:25 AM
They've already flown both.  The problem with the original contract was some of the language in the proposal that left it open for protest.  The Air Force's reissue of the proposal was to fix that language, and not about changing the parameters of the aircraft.  They've already flown the competitors during the last competition, and nothing in the resolicitation changes the aircraft specs.


more here
http://defensetech.org/2012/05/07/usaf-re-opens-light-attack-contest/
including links to other coverage, and the USAF RfP
Title: Re: Afghanistan Light Air Support controversy
Post by: besilarius on May 18, 2012, 05:51:30 AM
Hey, Brant wondered if you would know if this is/was true or just an urban legend.
During the early part of Vietnam, when it became obvious that close support, light attack planes would be paramount.  The Air Force was not set up for that kind of conflict, and did not want to use the Navy's AD1 Skyraider.
Supposedly, when the need for a low and slow aircraft (which meant propeller engines) was asked of an AF general, he replied that they had kept a P51 production line on ice, and could get that plane into production in a very short time.
This was just obtuse enough to make me think the general actually gave that reply.
The Mustang was an air superiority fighter, not close support, it was liquid cooled instead of a rotary piston (like the P47 or Corsair) and, of course, before such aline could be put into operation, everyone on it would have to be trained from a standing start.
They asked for a prop plane, and the general gave them a prop plane.  Just not the right kind.
So, could the Air Force actually have kept a factory in mothballs for almost twenty years?  And could they still be holding onto it?
Title: Re: Afghanistan Light Air Support controversy
Post by: bayonetbrant on May 18, 2012, 05:59:06 AM
probably not still holding onto it now, given all the mergers and consolidations since then

However, for a while the P51 line was sitting there b/c it wasn't cost-effective to re-tool it to another aircraft type, given that demand had shifted to jets and overall aircraft purchases were down.
IIRC, a lot of smaller countries were buying second-hand P51s right after WWII, and there were enough of them to go around.  With no incentive to re-tool the production line, it was left sitting there in case the second-hand market finally expanded enough to result in new buys.  But by that time, anyone that could buy fighters was over-extending to buy jets.
Title: .
Post by: eyebiter on May 18, 2012, 07:23:14 AM
.
Title: Re: Afghanistan Light Air Support controversy
Post by: mirth on May 18, 2012, 10:52:49 AM
Quote from: eyebiter on May 18, 2012, 07:23:14 AM
During the Vietnam War Cavalier Aircraft developed a modified ground attack version of the Mustang.  The design was eventually sold to Piper.   

http://www.aviastar.org/air/usa/piper_pa-48.php

Nice find.

Check this out too. The idea of Mustangs as executive business planes is pretty wild.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cavalier_Mustang