??? The Muj shot down 270 Soviet aircraft.

Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile

It must stream via BFT somehow.
You can't pre-determine the echelon that may find itself in need.
What we need are FAC-As in Tucanos or OV-10s talking like a real person.
UAVs are not CAS.  They are ISR and Strike.
CAS is, by definition, detailed integration of air and ground.  You can't integrate a pilot in another province (or continent).

I would like to see the breakdown and source.
Taliban killed me 3 times according to ICOM chatter.

Classic.  I always wondered just how much "filler material" was in that particular bomb.

Damn that's one ugly plane.



 

Yeah, we already went over this in class.

A-37? The A-37 had the same loiter time as a fat guy jumping.

Did you miss the part about observation?
Can't see shit out of that.

Great plane but the problem is that it carries guns and bombs and we sure the hell dont want to hurt anybody do we?That would piss off our coward president and it would mean that he has to get on his knees and beg forgivness for us killing murdrers.

Observation? That's a two-bagger airplane.



I couldn't get past looking at it.



 

Thats pretty ignorant. What makes you think that they cannont support our troops because they are piston driven. Would you rather have and sky raider or nothing? Does it not perform its intended task when called upon? does it not have a respectable loiter time?

Not the T-37
The A-37 had pretty big twin tips.
I read it had 6.5 hours endurance.
Might have read wrong.

Man, I remember the last time I was in Afghanistan, the Taliban were shooting down Blackhawks and Chinooks constantly with MANPAD's.  Oh wait, they weren't.

What class?

Google, it's a motherfucker....

Variants
XBT2D-1 - Single-seat dive-bomber, torpedo-bomber prototype for the U.S. Navy.
XBT2D-1N - Three-seat night attack prototypes, only three aircraft built.
XBT2D-1P - Photographic reconnaissance prototype, only one built.
XBT2D-1Q - Two-seat electronics countermeasures prototype. One aircraft only.
BT2D-2 (XAD-2) - Upgraded attack aircraft, one prototype only.
AD-1 - The first production model, 242 built.
AD-1Q - Two-seat electronic countermeasures version of the AD-1, 35 built.
AD-1U - AD-1 with radar countermeasures and tow target equipment, no armament and no water injection equipment.
XAD-1W - Three-seat airborne early warning prototype. AD-3W prototype, one aircraft only.
AD-2 - Improved model, powered by 2,700 hp (2,000 kW) Wright R-3350-26W engine, 156 built.
AD-2D - Unofficial designation for AD-2s used as remote-control aircraft, to collect and gather radioactive material in the air after nuclear tests.
AD-2Q - Two-seat electronics countermeasures version of the AD-2, 21 built.
AD-2QU - AD-2 with radar countermeasures and target towing equipment, no armament and no water injection equipment, one aircraft only.
XAD-2 - Similar to XBT2D-1 except engine, increased fuel capacity.
AD-3 - Proposed turboprop version, initial designation of A2D Skyshark.





AD-3 - Stronger fuselage, improved landing gear, new canopy design, 125 built.
AD-3S - Anti-submarine warfare model, only two prototypes were built.
AD-3N - Three-seat night attack version, 15 built.
AD-3Q - Electronics countermeasures version, countermeasures equipment relocated for better crew comfort. 23 built.
AD-3QU - Target towing aircraft, but most were delivered as the AD-3Q.
AD-3W - Airborne early warning version, 31 built.
XAD-3E - AD-3W modified for ASW with Aeroproducts propellor
AD-4 - Strengthened landing gear, improved radar, G-2 compass, anti-G suit provisions, four 20 mm (.79 in) cannon and 14 Aero rocket launchers, capable of carrying up to 50 lb (23 kg) of bombs. 372 built.
AD-4B - Specialized version designed to carry nuclear weapons, also armed with four 20 mm cannon. 165 built plus 28 conversions.
AD-4L - Equipped for winter operations in Korea, 63 conversions.
AD-4N - Three-seat night attack version, 307 built.
AD-4NA - Designation of 100 AD-4Ns without their night-attack equipment, but fitted with four 20 mm (0.79 in) cannon, for service in Korea as ground-attack aircraft.
AD-4NL - version of the AD-4N, 36 conversions.
AD-4Q - Two-seat electronic countermeasures version of the AD-4, 39 built.
AD-4W - Three-seat airborne early warning version, 168 built. 50 AD-4Ws were transferred to the Royal Navy as Skyraider AEW Mk 1.
AD-5 (A-1E) - Side by side seating for pilot and co-pilot, without dive brakes.  The AD-5 could carry a crew of four, plus four passengers or 12 troops, four stretchers, or 2,000 pounds of cargo.  212 built.
AD-5N (A-1G) - Four-seat night attack version, with radar countermeasures, 239 built.
AD-5Q (EA-1F) - Four-seat electronics countermeasures version, 54 conversions.
AD-5S - One prototype to test Magnetic anomaly detector (MAD) anti-submarine equipment.
AD-5W (EA-1E) - Three-seat airborne early warning version. 218 were built.
UA-1E - Utility version of the AD-5.
AD-6 (A-1H) - Single-seat attack aircraft with three dive brakes, centerline station stressed for 3,500 lb (1,600 kg) of ordinance, 30 in (760 mm) in diameter, combination 14/30 in (360/760 mm) bomb ejector and low/high altitude bomb director, 713 built.
AD-7 (A-1J) - The final production model, powered by a R3350-26WB engine, with structural improvements to increase wing fatigue life, 72 built.

Drug Interdiction on the Southern Border

There are a ton of sourcs that are using the 270 figure. However, I'm going to go with the at least semi-official link below that state "under 100". Regardless, one day shit just started blowing up and there's no reason to assume that can't happen in our Afghan war.



See P42

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/crs/43981.pdf#xml=http://www.globalsecurity.org/cgi-bin/texis.cgi/webinator/search/pdfhi.txt?query=soviet+aircraft+lost+afghanistan&pr=default&prox=page&rorder=500&rprox=500&rdfreq=500&rwfreq=500&rlead=500&rdepth=0&sufs=0&order=r&cq=&id=4c2eb4a613

"Air Tractor" is right...that mofo looks like a tacti-cool crop duster...

Um. no it's not. Do you have any idea how much work it takes to run those radial engines? Not to mention parts support, the skill set, etc.  Antiques belong in a museum.

It is a tacticool crop duster.

From what I understand, in a full combat loadout it had about an 800mile range, which is short. It could be improved by aerial refueling and extra drop tanks but that decreases time on station and loadout capacity.

...that's exactly what it is.  The original design is for agricultural work, somebody slapped armor glass and Zuni rockets on it and called it tacticool.

Hinds were turbine powered, thus a large heat signature.

Not so much with the Spad.

Some Spads had a two man or more crew.

Pros - Huge firepower, extended loiter, slow speed for optimum manoeverability in the valleys, inexpensive

Cons - Needs upgrades like a turboprop, modern avionics, head-on IR signature is probably huge

I sure as hell wouldn't want to be on the receiving end of a Sandy on a CAS run. If they were an option, I think they would work pretty well. The Taliban are using a lot of the same weapons as the VC, and they (the VC) didn't shoot down many of them.

Which brings up the bigger question, why does the military suck at CAS?

Cannot argue with anyof this.   Where would it operate from ? What is distance to target/loiter area and what is time involved there?  It "aint" fast, but then neither is an A-10 for that matter.  I wonder about the high altitude capabilites especially with a heavy load.  Yeah, I know it's turbocharged, but a big turbine engine would be much better, a lot more hp with a lot less  weight.

Who does CAS better than our military?

I think the point would be to upgrade the avionics.

Also, just because something is super-nifty with regards to tech, doesn't mean it is well suited to a particular role on the battlefield. Think, using F-22s for CAS.

nice fantasies boys, those planes will never see duty because of the drones!

I love Skyraiders, but their time has come and gone.

My wife just saw the pic in the first post and asked "Is that a b-52 bomber?"

Not bad but we already have the best in Afghanistan:

Please articulate why in a high altitude fight a chopper is better than a fixed wing aircraft.

CAS could be done a lot better.

What about direct impingement engines??    Sorry, could not help myself.

Fixt

Semper Fi!

Not to mention how much 100LL they eat and there is no support network for that type of fuel (at least in quantity) and jet fuel is much safer anyway.

Dont worry, Im ignorant though.

The Skyraider was pretty nice in Vietnam, but if you were on the ground in Afghanistan/Iraq...wouldn't you rather have this backing you up?

Talk them into flying at night.

A2D Skyshark

NVM.





 

Skyraider pilots often took a bag lunch with them.

Even if 100LL was available, these engines got peak performance from 100/130 and 115/145, neither is very available now! Swapping a much lighter turbine would cause major weight/balance problems as the aircraft is set up to fly with that heavy radial up front.

... but you all must admit: dropping a shitter on the enemy shows some real style on the part of that driver.

This...



No gasoline-powered vehicles in combat.... It screws up logistics, when everything else (even ground vehicles) runs on JP-8 or JP-4.....



 

Aircrew.





 

'Troops in Contact'...



Someone's getting shot at, and they need support ASAP....