American Attack Aircraft Since 1926

456 Pages·2008·19.24 MB·English

by  E.R. Johnson

AMERICAN ATTACK
AIRCRAFT SINCE 1926
This page intentionally left blank
A
MERICAN
A A
TTACK IRCRAFT
S 1926
INCE
E.R. Johnson
McFarland & Company, Inc., Publishers
Jefferson, North Carolina, and London
All three-view illustrations are by Lloyd S. Jones.
All photographs are courtesy David W. Ostrowski,
unless otherwise noted.
LIBRARYOFCONGRESSCATALOGUING-IN-PUBLICATIONDATA
Johnson, E.R., ¡948–
American attack aircraft since 1926 / E.R. Johnson.
p. cm.
Includes bibliographical references and index.
ISBN 978-0-7864-3464-0
illustrated case binding : 50# alkaline paper
¡. Attack planes—United States—History.
I. Title
UG¡242.A28J64 2008 623.74'63—dc22 20080¡4537
British Library cataloguing data are available
©2008 E.R. Johnson. All rights reserved
No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted in any form
or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying
or recording, or by any information storage and retrieval system,
without permission in writing from the publisher.
On the cover: An A-10 Thunderbolt II flying over Afghanistan during
Operation Enduring Freedom (U.S. Air Force/Capt. Justin T. Watson)
Manufactured in the United States of America
McFarland & Company, Inc., Publishers
Box 6¡¡, Je›erson, North Carolina 28640
www.mcfarlandpub.com
Contents
Preface 1
PART I—USAAC, USAAF, AND USAF ATTACK AIRCRAFT
Historical Note
The Emergence of Tactical Air Power 3
Attack Aircraft Procurement 6
First Series • 1926–1944 11
Second Series • 1946–1961 109
Third Series • 1962–present 161
Fourth Series (Adapted Attack Aircraft) • 1950–Present 205
PART II—USN AND USMC ATTACK AIRCRAFT
Historical Note
The Role of the Aircraft Carrier 227
The Emergence of Marine Corps Aviation 228
Attack Aircraft Procurement 229
First Series • 1926–1946 234
Second Series • 1946–1962 332
Third Series • 1962–present 367
Appendix 1: Aircraft Designations and Nomenclature 413
Appendix 2: Attack Aircraft Unit Organization 416
Appendix 3: Attack Aircraft Designs That Never Flew 418
Appendix 4: Evolution of Weapons and Tactics 433
Bibliography 441
Index 443
v
To the memory of my father,
Colonel Ector R. Johnson, Jr., USMCR (Ret.),
who, through the course of a 23-year military flying career
encompassing combat duty in two wars, flew thirteen
different types of the attack aircraft listed in this book.
Preface
American Attack Aircraft Since 1926 was written to provide a concise historical survey,
including technical specifications, drawings, and photographs, of the various types of fixed-
wing aircraft used over an 81-year period by the U.S. armed forces to carry out air attack mis-
sions. In standard military terminology, these missions typically fall into two broad categories
and are described by acronyms as follows.
DIRECT AIR ATTACK
CAS—Close Air Support: attacks on enemy personnel and weapons near the forward edge
of the battle area (FEBA). Integration of air strikes with the fire and maneuver of friendly
ground forces is mandatory.
BAI—Battlefield Air Interdiction: attacks on enemy objectives in rear areas that are likely
to have an immediate or near-term effect on friendly forces. As with CAS, coordination of air
strikes with friendly ground forces is generally required.
FAC—Forward Air Control: a controller, either airborne or ground-based, who coordi-
nates and directs air strikes against enemy positions.
INDIRECT AIR ATTACK
AI—Air Interdiction: attacks on enemy objectives in rear areas, out of range of artillery
and other concentrated air defenses. Coordination with ground forces is optional, and in mod-
ern battlefield terminology, a prescribed area in which unrestricted AI may be carried out is
defined as a “kill box.”
OCA—Offensive Counter-Air: attacks on enemy air bases to destroy aircraft on the ground
as well as support facilities such as runways, maintenance areas, and ammunition and fuel dumps.
SEAD—Suppression of Enemy Air Defenses: air attacks on enemy antiaircraft guns and
surface to air missiles (SAMs) plus the radar and control systems associated with their opera-
tion.
EW—Electronic Warfare: in the context of air attack, a non-lethal airborne system using
electromagnetic energy to disrupt enemy electronic signals, especially those of radar-controlled
weapons systems.
1
2 Preface
The Historical Notes appearing at the beginning of both parts of the book endeavor to
show how each service has evolved its attack mission and explain the methods used to procure
aircraft to perform that mission. Although a few types conceived for strategic attack are
reported, the predominant focus is upon aircraft routinely used to deliver ordnance in a battle-
field support role on land or at sea. For organizational purposes, the book is divided between
U.S. Army Air Corps, U.S. Army Air Forces, and U.S. Air Force types in Part I and U.S. Navy
and U.S. Marine Corps types in Part II. Each part is further sub-divided into chronological
series, and within each series, aircraft types are reported in alpha-numeric sequence by their
military designations, or in a few cases, by factory model numbers. Supplementing Parts I and
II are four appendices: 1—Attack Aircraft Designations and Nomenclature, 2—Attack Air-
craft Unit Organization, 3—Attack Aircraft Designs That Never Flew, and 4—Evolution of
Weapons and Tactics.
PART I
USAAC, USAAF,
and USAF Attack Aircraft
H N
ISTORICAL OTE
“Offense is the essence of air power.”—General Henry H. “Hap” Arnold,
Chief of the U.S. Army Air Corps 1937–1941,
and U.S. Army Air Forces, 1941–1945
The Emergence of Tactical Air Power
The earliest attack doctrines evolved by the U.S. Army Air Service, which became the
U.S. Army Air Corps (USAAC) on July 2, 1926, were heavily influenced by the lessons of World
War I. Significantly, early theorists concluded that aircraft operating in close proximity to the
battle lines were simply too vulnerable to justify the risk of providing close air support (CAS)
by direct air attack. On the other hand, air interdiction (AI)—indirect air attack on less heav-
ily defended objectives in the rear areas—was seen as practical. Theorists reasoned that AI
missions flown against targets like forces in reserve and vital supplies would not only slow
down or stop the enemy’s ability to continue battle, but would reduce his morale as well.
Accepted tactics, low-level attacks with machine guns and fragmentation bombs, were based
on World War I experience. As the influence of the Air Corps Tactical School (ACTS)1increased
during the 1930s, attack doctrine extended to offensive counter-air (OCA), consisting of attacks
on enemy air bases to destroy aircraft on the ground and impair support facilities such as run-
ways, maintenance areas, and fuel dumps. ACTS theorists believed that the application of OCA
would help achieve air superiority for what was perceived as the main focus of air power: long-
range strategic bombardment of the enemy’s military-industrial infrastructure.2
After attack units had reequipped with modern monoplanes during the early and
mid–1930s, combat reports from the Spanish Civil War (1936–1939) and the emergence of a
powerful German Luftwaffe caused the USAAC hierarchy to doubt the effectiveness of using
1After being organized in 1920 as the Air Service Field Officer’s School, it was renamed the Air Corps Tactical
School in 1926 and went on to become the U.S. Army Air Corps’ most important “think tank” with regard to the mil-
itary role of air power. By the time the school suspended operations in mid–1940, it had produced 1,091officer grad-
uates, of which 261became general officers in the U.S. Army Air Forces during World War II.
2Euphemistically referred to by latter-day historians as the ACTS “Bomber Mafia.” Spurred by developments like
the Norden bombsight and the Boeing B-17, advocates believed that any potential enemy could ultimately be subdued
by a sustained campaign of long-range strategic bombardment.
3