Ground-attack aircraft
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Ground-attack aircraft are military aircraft designed to attack targets on the ground and are often deployed as close air support for, and in proximity to, their own ground forces. The proximity to friendly forces require precision strikes from these aircraft that are not possible with typical bomber aircraft. The resultant proximity to enemy targets also require aircraft that are more robust than other types of military aircraft. Examples include the US Fairchild A-10 Thunderbolt II and Russian Sukhoi Su-25 Frogfoot.
Because they are typically deployed as close air support to ground forces, their role is tactical rather than strategic, operating at the front of the battle rather than against targets deeper in the enemy's rear. As such, they are often attached to and in the direct command and control structures of army units as opposed to air force units, though tactical air forces attached to army formations are still an organic part of the air force and ultimately under air-force command. A number of names have or are used for ground-attack aircraft: attack aircraft, fighter-bomber, tactical fighter, tank-buster, tactical bomber, strafer, strike aircraft etc.
Contents |
[edit] Definition
Like most combat aircraft classifications, the definition of ground attack is somewhat vague. A key difference between it and otherwise similar designs like attack aircraft is the expectation that they will receive small arms fire and are generally armored to protect the pilot against this threat. In general a ground-attack aircraft will also be smaller and more "fighter like" than designs like strike fighters, attack aircraft or interdictors.
In US service ground-attack aircraft have been identified by the prefix A- as in "A-6". British designations have included FB for fighter-bomber and more recently "G" for Ground as in "Harrier GR1".
The NATO reporting names for Soviet/Russian ground attack aircraft classified them as "fighters" instead of "bombers" possibly, because they were often only variants of fighter aircraft, but always similar in size, range and weapons to fighters.
[edit] History
In the First World War dedicated "trench fighters" such as the Sopwith Camel TF.1 and the Boeing GA-1 were experimented with but not taken up.
The development of the ground-attack aircraft came in between the World Wars, mostly through the adaptation of fighters or light bombers. Following the end of World War I, the United States embraced its role of global power and the United States Marine Corps became the preferred force for military intervention and where the Marines went so went Marine aviation. It was while fighting bandits and insurgents in places such as Haiti, the Dominican Republic and Nicaragua that Marine Aviators would begin to experiment with air-ground tactics making the support of their fellow Marines on the ground their primary mission. It was in Haiti that Marines began to develop the tactic of dive bombing and in Nicaraugua where they began to perfect it. While other nations and services had tried variations of this technique, Marine aviators were the first to embrace it and make it part of their tactical doctrine[1]
At the start of World War II engine power was scarce and aircraft had to be tailored to individual roles. Ground attack aircraft during this era were generally created for the role, one that was considered largely unimportant and therefore saw little development. Perhaps the only early-war aircraft in this niche was the Henschel Hs 123, a biplane. The Germans worked on a suitable replacement and eventually delivered the Henschel Hs 129, which featured a steel-armored cockpit and windows made of bulletproof glass. Only small numbers were built, however, as the Germans widely used the more flexible Junkers Ju 87 Stuka dive-bomber in the ground attack role. A more famous example is the Ilyushin Il-2 Shturmovik, a light bomber that was adapted into the ground attack role with it armoured fuselage, powerful artillery and possibility of using air-to-ground missiles. More than forty three thousand Ilyushin Il-2 were built through World War II. Stalin credited the Il-2 with winning the war.[citation needed]
As engine power improved, roughly doubling over the course of the war, even the average day fighter was more than capable enough to carry out the ground attack role, and some of the most successful designs were slight modifications of existing designs. One of the most successful of these was the RAF's Hawker Typhoons, although they deployed a variety of other aircraft due to changing availability. The Germans made a series of adapted versions of the Focke-Wulf Fw 190, the F and G series, serving roughly the same purpose. The same was true of the USAAF, who moved former front-line fighters into the ground attack role during the war, notably the P-38 Lightning and P-47 Thunderbolt, as newer aircraft took up the air superiority role.
While machine guns and cannon were sufficient against infantry and light vehicles, and one or two small bombs could be easily fitted to most fighters, for operations against tanks heavier weapons such as the 40 mm Vickers S gun or high explosive rockets (such as the RP-3 60 lb rocket) were needed. The former equipped the Hawker Hurricane to good effect in North Africa Campaign, the latter was used by many RAF aircraft among them the Typhoon. Both the US and Soviets also used a variety of rockets in this role. The Germans also deployed rockets, as well as the first cluster bombs.
[edit] Post World War II
In the immediate post war era the piston engined ground attack aircraft remained useful - Royal Navy Hawker Sea Fury fighters and the US Vought F4U Corsair and Douglas A-1 Skyraider operated in the Korea with the latter plane effective into the Vietnam conflict. The long loiter times of the piston powered planes gave an advantage over thirsty jet planes.
In most of the post-World War II era air forces have been increasingly reluctant to develop combat aircraft specifically for ground attack. Although close air support and interdiction remain crucial to the modern battlefield, attack aircraft are less glamorous than fighters, and both pilots and military planners have a certain well-cultivated contempt for 'mud-movers.' More practically, the extra cost of a dedicated ground attack aircraft is harder to justify as opposed to having multi-role aircraft.
In the late 1960s the US Air Force requested a dedicated air support plane that became the Republic A-10 Thunderbolt II. It eventually became a primarily anti-armor weapon with limited capability in the interdiction and tactical bombing role, and even in the anti-tank role it was met with mixed feelings. However, the A-10's performance during Operation Desert Storm negated these criticisms. Current US doctrine increasingly emphasizes the use of US Army helicopters for close air support and anti-tank missions. The Soviets' similar Sukhoi Su-25 (Frogfoot) found greater success in the flying artillery role, although it, too, shifted to anti-armor use in later versions and has largely been phased out in favor of 'fast mover' fighter-bomber versions of the MiG-29 and Su-27.
Examples of modern ground attack aircraft include the A-10 Thunderbolt II, Sukhoi Su-7, Sukhoi Su-17, Sukhoi Su-25 (Frogfoot), Nanchang Q-5. Ground attack has otherwise become the domain of converted trainers like the BAC Strikemaster, BAE Hawk, and Cessna A-37.
[edit] Recent History
U.S. experience in the Gulf War, Afghanistan, in the Iraq War, as well as the U.S. experience intervening militarily in Kosovo, has resulted in renewed interest in fixed-wing ground-attack aircraft.
Under the Key West Agreement which governs the allocation of aircraft between the U.S. Army and the U.S. Air Force, fixed-wing ground-attack aircraft were generally allocated to the Air Force, while attack helicopters were generally allocated to the Army. The Army, wishing to have its own resources to support its troops in combat and faced with a lack of Air Force enthusiasm for the ground-attack role, developed the AH-64 Apache attack helicopter for ground-attack roles such as destroying enemy tanks and supporting troops in combat.
One concern involving the Apache arose when a unit of these helicopters were very slow to deploy during U.S. military involvement in Kosovo. The Apache, which is the main alternative for the same airborne anti-tank role in the U.S. military as the A-10, ended up performing more poorly than anticipated, while the A-10 performed well in anti-tank roles in the Gulf War and in Iraq. Indeed, in the 2003 Invasion of Iraq, a unit of AH-64 Apaches was severely mauled by the Republican Guard division, Hammurabi.
According to the Army Times,[1] the Army is shifting its doctrine to favor ground-attack aircraft over attack helicopters for this role because ground-attack helicopters have proved to be highly vulnerable to small-arms fire. The U.S. Marines have noted similar problems.[2]
Officially, the U.S. Air Force planned to replace the only dedicated ground-attack aircraft currently in U.S. service, the A-10, with its new "Joint Strike Fighter", the F-35 Lightning II. But, facing political concerns that the new fighters were not designed for the ground-attack role that had proven particular useful in Iraq [3]and Afghanistan,[4] [5] a plan to decommission the A-10 has been replaced with a plan to upgrade the existing aircraft with improved electronics [6] extending the service life of the planes until as late as 2028. The U.S. Air Force has not commissioned any new designs for this role (in part, out of concern for the F-35 program).
The UK is replacing its current ground attack aircraft with the F-35 (replacing the Harriers), and the Eurofighter Typhoon (Jaguars and Tornado GRs)
The other major complication to planes of military forces to purchase new ground-attack aircraft is uncertainty over the degree to which manned fixed wing aircraft may be replaced by unmanned combat drones in this role, a possibility illustrated by the armed Predator drone which has been used in this capacity.
[edit] See also
[edit] References
[edit] Notes
- ^ Corum & Johnson, "Small Wars", p. 23-40.
[edit] Bibliography
- Corum, James S. & Johnson, Wray R. (2003). Airpower in Small Wars - Fighting Insurgents and Terrorists. Lawrence, Kansas: University Press of Kansas, 23. ISBN 0-70061-240-8.
 |
This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding reliable references. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (November 2007) |
