User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 8/23/2017 11:45:03 PM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
And yet attack helicopters fly even lower and slower and manage to fly CAS and live to tell the tale.... USAF is dangerously close to making a good decision... that particular bomb is too big, but it's a start. Leave the useless guns off, ditch the twin-engined jet entrant, and get down to business. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/23/2017 11:47:51 PM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The A-10 though it's everyone's favorite has sidelined these light COIN types many times. People don't see the A-10 community as being an obstacle but... Put the killers into killing machines that can kill more fuckers that need killing. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/23/2017 11:51:18 PM EDT
[#3]
Why not keep the A-10. It's proven and I'm sure it can be updated. Prop seems retro and a little suicidal on todays battlefield.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/23/2017 11:51:49 PM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
USAF doesn't need another one-trick pony that can only be used against goat-love enthusiasts. AC-130 already fills that role. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/23/2017 11:53:33 PM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Why not keep the A-10. It's proven and I'm sure it can be updated. Prop seems retro and a little suicidal on todays battlefield. Anything approaching near-peer or halfway competent IADS means Warthog stays on the ground these days. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/23/2017 11:54:17 PM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
My only issue with these CAS and COIN planes is lack of payload capacity. The thing should be able to carry 2-4 1000lb bombs, all kinds of rockets, 20 or 30mm vulcan or maybe 4x.50cals. Clean up the aerodynamics a little, and add turbine engines, modern avionics with a couple of WSO's ready to convert bad guys into good guys. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/23/2017 11:57:24 PM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
My only issue with these CAS and COIN planes is lack of payload capacity. The thing should be able to carry 2-4 1000lb bombs, all kinds of rockets, 20 or 30mm vulcan or maybe 4x.50cals. Rockets by the shitload, and small bombs by the even bigger shitload. That's the way forward. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/24/2017 12:00:50 AM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So a low-flying low-speed prop aircraft flying combat missions. Do they just not expect them to come back alive? They know what the mission is for this plane and what it is not. It's almost an A-10 replacement, and it seems to do what the aging A-10 is needed for now, cheaper. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/24/2017 12:12:35 AM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Sounds interesting and all, but why would we invest in sending a real pilot down range when we could do much more with a UAV? (unmanned aircraft) Big UAV's are expensive and somewhat unreliable. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/24/2017 12:21:01 AM EDT
[#10]
More like this. Slightly bigger to fly more ordnance. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/24/2017 12:24:40 AM EDT
[#11]
Quote History
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/24/2017 12:45:47 AM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The A-10 though it's everyone's favorite has sidelined these light COIN types many times. People don't see the A-10 community as being an obstacle but... |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/24/2017 1:10:49 AM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Cost. Big UAV's are expensive and somewhat unreliable. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/24/2017 1:37:19 AM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Update. Outboard .338 mini-guns. Nacelle 20mm cannon. Assorted Hate on hardpoints. Fast as hell even in WW2. 2 engines. 
https://i.ytimg.com/vi/WCapVFcVR1o/maxresdefault.jpg |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/24/2017 8:37:37 AM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Let's build new B-26 Marauders. Souped up B-25's, too. Clean up the aerodynamics a little, and add turbine engines, modern avionics with a couple of WSO's ready to convert bad guys into good guys. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/24/2017 12:14:54 PM EDT
[#16]
We need an OV-10 with a lower or rear facing turret gun in 30-40 mm that can be loaded with proximity fused he shells. This way it can fire on targets to the side and behind it.
It also needs a bunch of precision guided mortar shells that it can drop. Still needs forward firing guns and rockets/munitions on pylons. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/24/2017 12:28:30 PM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
We need an OV-10 with a lower or rear facing turret gun in 30-40 mm that can be loaded with proximity fused he shells. This way it can fire on targets to the side and behind it. It also needs a bunch of precision guided mortar shells that it can drop. Still needs forward firing guns and rockets/munitions on pylons. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/24/2017 12:32:09 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Tucano isn't slow, not much slower than the A-10, but it has the option of going real slow - stall speed is like 90 Mph. I also believe turboprops are less fragile than turbofans but I can't say that for sure. They know what the mission is for this plane and what it is not. It's almost an A-10 replacement, and it seems to do what the aging A-10 is needed for now, cheaper. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
So a low-flying low-speed prop aircraft flying combat missions. Do they just not expect them to come back alive? They know what the mission is for this plane and what it is not. It's almost an A-10 replacement, and it seems to do what the aging A-10 is needed for now, cheaper. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/24/2017 12:42:23 PM EDT
[#19]
Stupid question, I'm sure, but: How many modern militaries of the world issue MANPADs on a squad level? Whenever I see something about SAMs, they usually appear mostly as vehicle born or emplacement weapons.
Do we, the US or any of our near-peer adversaries, issue MANPADs to groups in theatre? For the intended role of CAS or mopup, an asshole with a Stinger or Redeye would concern me flying something like that, rather than some large, cumbersome vehicle with a couple hundred thousand dollar missile on the back (S-400s or what not). Of course, I would imagine anything flying close to the ground like that would have flares onboard... |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/24/2017 12:48:50 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The A-10 is obsolete for the job it was designed to do. The Tucano is a better, cheaper replacement for the job the A-10 tries to do now, imo. Tries to do? Dumbass post of the day. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/24/2017 12:50:32 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So a low-flying low-speed prop aircraft flying combat missions. Do they just not expect them to come back alive? |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/24/2017 12:56:26 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
USAF doesn't need another one-trick pony that can only be used against goat-love enthusiasts. AC-130 already fills that role. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/24/2017 12:59:40 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
That's so brilliant it would never work. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Let's build new B-26 Marauders. Souped up B-25's, too. Clean up the aerodynamics a little, and add turbine engines, modern avionics with a couple of WSO's ready to convert bad guys into good guys. The prop bone is connected to the rudder bone; ain't nothin' free. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/24/2017 1:00:53 PM EDT
[#24]
What was wrong with the old A-4 attack jet?
And what is wrong with the A-10? |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/24/2017 1:01:38 PM EDT
[#25]
Quoted:
The A-29 is participating in the U.S. Air Force Light Attack Experiment (OA-X), a series of trials to determine the feasibility of using light aircraft in attack roles. all this shit has already been done/proven but the AF is doing it again-fucking retards. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/24/2017 1:06:31 PM EDT
[#26]
Feasibility?
Clearly, we aren't even sure if these aircraft can even do the job!!! It may take a decade or two of testing to even see if the IDEA of a light attack aircraft will even WORK! FFS. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/24/2017 1:07:45 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Tasked to support regular ground units? Never heard of one doing anything outside of supporting SOF. Not saying it hasn't happened, but it's not common and is counter to the purpose of a light attack aircraft. Numerous, cheap, long loiter time, capable. Harvest HAWKs for the 400 C-130s flying training minimums would work. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/24/2017 1:12:36 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryWTF is wrong with the A10? What did I miss? What little I can gather is that they're aging bigly and a maintenance nightmare. So build new ones?! [Flame suit on] because I'm sure this is a dumb question. ETA: love the P38. Great pic. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/24/2017 1:14:13 PM EDT
[#29]
Can stingers even lock on to small turbo prop?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/24/2017 1:14:37 PM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So a low-flying low-speed prop aircraft flying combat missions. Do they just not expect them to come back alive? |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/24/2017 1:16:27 PM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
This. I'm not a vet, nor an expert in CAS, or aircraft in general. But I've read every one of these threads. WTF is wrong with the A10? What did I miss? What little I can gather is that they're aging bigly and a maintenance nightmare. So build new ones?! [Flame suit on] because I'm sure this is a dumb question. ETA: love the P38. Great pic. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/24/2017 1:16:43 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
This. I'm not a vet, nor an expert in CAS, or aircraft in general. But I've read every one of these threads. WTF is wrong with the A10? What did I miss? What little I can gather is that they're aging bigly and a maintenance nightmare. So build new ones?! [Flame suit on] because I'm sure this is a dumb question. Single Pilot. Gun designed to destroy T-62s is largely ineffective against current threats. Can't survive a non-permissive airspace. Flies a profile which make it both unnecessarily at risk to ground fire WHILE making it much more likely to have a fratricide event. Designed around a gun and munitions that were cutting edge 45 years ago are greatly outclassed today. Old and flown hard. They need to be replaced. Since it is restricted to airspace that lacks any sophisticated ADA, it is overdesigned and more expensive to fly than alternatives. Never really designed for "CAS". Was always better at interdiction. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/24/2017 1:17:15 PM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
That's what I was thinking Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
So a low-flying low-speed prop aircraft flying combat missions. Do they just not expect them to come back alive? |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/24/2017 1:17:24 PM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
That's what I was thinking "thinking" In what way are these aircraft less survivable than rotary wing aircraft? |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/24/2017 1:19:16 PM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
My only issue with these CAS and COIN planes is lack of payload capacity. The thing should be able to carry 2-4 1000lb bombs, all kinds of rockets, 20 or 30mm vulcan or maybe 4x.50cals. Ever called in CAS with Mk.83s? It's freaking brutal even many clicks away. Super Tucano with SDBs would work just fine, along with Predator C, F-15E, AC-130J &W, F-16C, F-35A-C, F-22, A-10C, B-1B, B-52, and other things. Once they get the toss techniques and tactics worked out, Super Tucano will have stand-off capability as well with Link-16 and integrated targeting from multiple sensors and sources. They're putting SDB in MLRS as well to be ground-launched. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/24/2017 1:20:46 PM EDT
[#36]
Hellfires and FFARs will handle 95% of the problems we face in the environment they are designed for.
If they need bigger they can swap over to a FAC-A and call in fast movers. How many Taliban tanks are we going after at this point? |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/24/2017 1:28:06 PM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Single Pilot. Gun designed to destroy T-62s is largely ineffective against current threats. Can't survive a non-permissive airspace. Flies a profile which make it both unnecessarily at risk to ground fire WHILE making it much more likely to have a fratricide event. Designed around a gun and munitions that were cutting edge 45 years ago are greatly outclassed today. Old and flown hard. They need to be replaced. Since it is restricted to airspace that lacks any sophisticated ADA, it is overdesigned and more expensive to fly than alternatives. Never really designed for "CAS". Was always better at interdiction. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
This. I'm not a vet, nor an expert in CAS, or aircraft in general. But I've read every one of these threads. WTF is wrong with the A10? What did I miss? What little I can gather is that they're aging bigly and a maintenance nightmare. So build new ones?! [Flame suit on] because I'm sure this is a dumb question. Gun designed to destroy T-62s is largely ineffective against current threats. Can't survive a non-permissive airspace. Flies a profile which make it both unnecessarily at risk to ground fire WHILE making it much more likely to have a fratricide event. Designed around a gun and munitions that were cutting edge 45 years ago are greatly outclassed today. Old and flown hard. They need to be replaced. Since it is restricted to airspace that lacks any sophisticated ADA, it is overdesigned and more expensive to fly than alternatives. Never really designed for "CAS". Was always better at interdiction. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/24/2017 1:30:20 PM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Stupid question, I'm sure, but: How many modern militaries of the world issue MANPADs on a squad level? Whenever I see something about SAMs, they usually appear mostly as vehicle born or emplacement weapons. Do we, the US or any of our near-peer adversaries, issue MANPADs to groups in theatre? For the intended role of CAS or mopup, an asshole with a Stinger or Redeye would concern me flying something like that, rather than some large, cumbersome vehicle with a couple hundred thousand dollar missile on the back (S-400s or what not). Of course, I would imagine anything flying close to the ground like that would have flares onboard... We have the duty positions, but rarely use them. For a developing nation to employ them, they need direct support from a highly-industrialized nation's foreign intelligence and special operations forces with technical advisors, like we did for the Muj, and like is currently being done for elements in Syria who shot down a Turkish Cobra. Shelf life on the coolant for the seeker and technical training for the shooters is extremely perishable, to the extent that when we tried to source Soviet SA-7s from Egypt for the Muj, every single one the Egyptians had in warehouses was inoperable. They had several demos for the CIA weenies overseen by one competent officer with the relevant background, and they all failed. This is why we ended up fielding new, US-made FIM-92As to the Muj through the Pakistani ISI in the mid-80s. Even then, after they set up the training program and controls to minimize proliferation to other groups, the Stinger had a minimal effect in bringing down Soviet aircraft in Afghanistan. Their number one source of aircraft loss in Afghanistan was accidents and poor maintenance, but the psychological effect of Stingers was significant. Muj would set up outside of Soviet air bases in the predictable flight paths for intercept on take-off or landing based on the terrain. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/24/2017 1:31:44 PM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Why not keep the A-10. It's proven and I'm sure it can be updated. Prop seems retro and a little suicidal on todays battlefield. A-10 has under 2 hours endurance (about an hour and 45 min. depending on conditions, profile, load) for CAS with a 250nm combat radius. The A-10C will still be there for a while, but the fleet is old as sin. I've watched it literally from test and development through deployments where I've used it, to its end-of-life stage currently. I still remember the YA-10A that crashed out of Edwards due to gun exhaust ingestion, killing the test pilot, and the phases of gun nozzle designs they went through to address it. My dad brought me home one of the 30mm cartridges in the 70s, which I promptly stuck in my Millennium Falcon through the turret hole to use as a handle. I guess he knew some folks on the A-10 Combined Test Force, since he was doing something with the test instrumentation and telemetry data crunching for all the CTFs at the time. The A-10C still makes a great CSAR bird for downed pilots behind the lines or certain units who are running an E&E corridor. That will also involve F-15C or F-15E support as well depending on the threat environment. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/24/2017 1:37:25 PM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
A-29 has well over 8 hours of endurance. With gas and nothing else. I am not sure I want a pilot/WSO who has sat in that seat for 7 hours doing CAS. 3-5 hours would be a massive improvement. Hell, after 8 hours I should be out of Taliban if I am any good at my job. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/24/2017 1:37:33 PM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Harvest HAWKs for the 400 C-130s flying training minimums would work. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Tasked to support regular ground units? Never heard of one doing anything outside of supporting SOF. Not saying it hasn't happened, but it's not common and is counter to the purpose of a light attack aircraft. Numerous, cheap, long loiter time, capable. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/24/2017 1:38:39 PM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Feasibility? Clearly, we aren't even sure if these aircraft can even do the job!!! It may take a decade or two of testing to even see if the IDEA of a light attack aircraft will even WORK! FFS.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/24/2017 1:39:46 PM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
USAF doesn't need another one-trick pony that can only be used against goat-love enthusiasts. AC-130 already fills that role. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
And yet attack helicopters fly even lower and slower and manage to fly CAS and live to tell the tale.... USAF is dangerously close to making a good decision... that particular bomb is too big, but it's a start. Leave the useless guns off, ditch the twin-engined jet entrant, and get down to business. ETA: The AC-130 is around $200M per unit and uses a crew of over a dozen. That doesn't really scale well. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/24/2017 1:41:26 PM EDT
[#44]
A modernized P51. Even the WWII P51D only weighed 400 lbs more than the Super Tucano, but was faster, had a higher service ceiling, had 3x the combat range, and nearly the same payload. The P51D cost about $50k to produce in 1944, that is equivalent to around $700k today, yet the Super Tucano is $10 million + per unit.
I am no aviation expert, but aren't there better options than the Super Tucano? Seems way overpriced for what we are getting and appears to be very mediocre in performance. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/24/2017 1:43:07 PM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
A modernized P51. Even the WWII P51D only weighed 400 lbs more than the Super Tucano, but was faster, had a higher service ceiling, had 3x the combat range, and nearly the same payload. The P51D cost about $50k to produce in 1944, that is equivalent to around $700k today, yet the Super Tucano is $10 million + per unit. I am no aviation expert, but aren't there better options than the Super Tucano? Seems way overpriced for what we are getting and appears to be very mediocre in performance. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/24/2017 1:43:59 PM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
USAF doesn't need another one-trick pony that can only be used against goat-love enthusiasts. AC-130 already fills that role. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/24/2017 1:45:37 PM EDT
[#47]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/24/2017 1:49:19 PM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
And just stop training and other support missions? Our 400 C-130s are just being worked to death right now, aren't they? Stop training to go to war?!!?!?! Who ever heard of such a thing. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/24/2017 1:49:48 PM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So how many are Douglas going to crank out for the program?  |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/24/2017 1:50:05 PM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
What about support for non-SOCOM units? fuck those guys. if they weren't good enough for SOCOM, they certainly aren't good enough for air support. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
