OA-X

>>30746843

Why not just build new A-10s with more modern components?

If it ain't broke do we have any reason to fix it other than giving the military industrial complex an excuse to waste our taxes?

File: Combat-Dragon-II-OV-10G+.jpg (119KB, 1300x505px) Image search: [Google]

119KB, 1300x505px

>>30746893
The original company that developed the A-10 no longer exists

Also the OV-10G+ was already tested in Syria

File: a29.jpg (915KB, 1726x1209px) Image search: [Google]

915KB, 1726x1209px

>>30746843

>Should they proceed with this acquisition

If there is a genuine need for this sort of aircraft, then yes. It isn't our place to question their judgement.

>which plane

I'm biased towards the Super Taco, but either aircraft is probably adequate.

>>30746893

Wait let me guess, they've already scrapped all the machinery to build them because the geniuses at the Pentagon thought that Attack Helicopters were the wave of the future. So now we're looking at short term prop driven replacements?

>>30746893
I think it's the keyword "permissive environments"

Operating the equivalent of an armed T-6 is way cheaper then operating an A-10 for any amount of time.

A-10's haven't been built in decades are the niche they fill is only a portion of their role which they're not obsolete for.

>TL;DR find a cheap, capable airplane that can work in environment that don't need to worry about modern IADS/MANPADS

>>30746920

Honestly none of these replacements look very resistant to small arms fire compared to the A-10.

>>30746951
now obsolete for* fuck i need to proofread

>>30746951

Can these things survive a hit from an RPG? Because you'd need a really permissive environment not to have to worry about those.

>>30746982
Nope, but I don't think A-10s are being shot down with RPGs anyway.

>>30746920

>The original company that developed the A-10 no longer exists

So what? It's not like the A-10's design is so kafkaesk that nobody would ever be able to produce something similar.

All you need is the A-10 essentials:

>Two separated jet engines mounted behind the wings

>Long wingspan to ensure tight turns

>Large caliber cannon (30mm or bigger) with ammo supply

>Armored cockpit

>Lots of underwing hardpoints

>Jet engines are super expensive, that's a key point to a cost effective replacement

>Long wingspan doesn't mean tight turns.
>Turn radius is a combination of ground speed and bank angle, the A-10 airfoil shape benefits slow flight.

File: Beechcraft King Air 200.jpg (41KB, 560x296px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 560x296px

We have completely worn out the airframes of the entire military, bombing sand niggers with small arms.

We need a cheap to procure and cheap to operate manned airframe for dealing with Abu Hadjar.

I recommend the Beechcraft King Air. Government already owns a lot of them. Good range and payload. Would be capable of internal weapons bay.

File: skyraider.jpg (49KB, 736x432px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 736x432px

>>30746843
fuck it lets just go full it ain't me and bring back the Skyraider, we've already got the Broncos >>30746920

>>30746843

That pic makes my dick feel good

>>30747045
>that's a big plane
>F4U

>>30746893
It would require a company to tool up to make the planes which would entail a large initial starting cost and given the military's waffling its not beyond a company getting nervous about a sudden contract cancellation
TL;DR risk versus reward and money

>>30746929
More like they are literally pointless airframes that are too expensive for low-threat environments and too vulnerable for high-threat environments.

They're shit, they should purchase Broncos.

>>30746982
>RPG
anon pls educate yourself, this isn't battlefield

>>30746893
Also you can't just jam New components into an old design you have to do some redesigning to make them work and who only knows what problems could arise when doing so which means testing and building prototypes and stuff getting expensive fast and then Congress ask why the time and money

>>30746893
Finally its simply cheaper and logistically easier to buy something in current production

Why don't they just use F35

>>30747324

>Broncos

Literally the worst option for a turbo-prop

>>30747383
>Literally worst option
You are literally a faggot and probably ugly

>>30747430

>Wanting to use a Vietnam era plane instead of more modern options

>>30747444
>Implying old = bad

>>30747377

Cost. If they just need to bomb a weapon supply or take out light armour, where the only opposition they'll face are untrained farmers with dusty old AKs, it doesn't really make sense to send out a F-35 due to the launch and fuel costs alone.

Also Turboprops are very fuel efficient compared to jet engines, meaning they'll be able to go further distances and hang around longer. They'll also cost less in fuel. And if the Untrained farmers somehow pull a stinger out of their asses, the cost to replace a Wolverine or Tucano will be much less than an F35.

>>30747444
>wanting to use Vietnam era aircraft
Yeah, C-130's are shit they should be retired.

Love how the automatically excluded the OA-10X/OA-10 II because why would you want a second engine to get you home if the other is shot up?

The Super Taco is a meme COIN plane

Edit: Im retarded..

OV-10 Mk2...

>>30747559
Military intelligence is a oxymoron ya know

File: Embraer-KC-390.jpg (59KB, 960x720px) Image search: [Google]

59KB, 960x720px

Question: Would any of these planes capable of BBBRRRRRRRing a tank into oblivion like the A-10 can? Or they just gonna use missiles?
Also, what you guys think of the Embraer KC-390? sounds promising.

>>30746843
I would say they should use the OV-10G+ if only just so there will be civilian-owned airframes flying at the same time as airframes doing combat sorties.

That's a weird thing to think about, isn't it?

>>30747002
At that point, you may as well not bother staying true to the A-10 design and just make a whole new design with whatever improvements can be worked in.

>>30747619
The A10 cant brrrt a t72.


Besides, these are going to be used permissively. Even if theres an intel fuck up, it would still hav agms of some kind. Its not worth worrying about

>>30747383
I'll humor you. What about the Bronco is so bad?

>>30747529
most likely the target you described is exactly what theyll send the f35 for
while the superprops will be used for infantry support and intel

>>30747619
BRRRRT isn't for MBTs it's for medium and soft targets like BMPs or trucks. It has missiles for proper tanks.

>>30747674
Peyton Manning gave his mom the ol' chicken parm at an office party.

>>30746893
> If it ain't broke
But in this case, yeah, it's broken.

>>30747529
The cost of the Wolverine or Tucano being lost might be comparatively small, but the pilot? That's enough to buy another F-35. Training and experience is a bitch to replace. If the airspace is permissive, I honestly think they should send in UCAV instead.

>>30747002
ask me how I know you don't have an engineering degree.

>>30747582
spoken by a fucking fat cunt in a grease stained tshirt posting on a Russian borscht making lomography forum.

File: A-29-Super-Tucano-01-militaryknpwledge-blogspot-com.jpg (230KB, 1200x800px) Image search: [Google]

230KB, 1200x800px

>>30746843

Fuck, i sweared before i click on the pic, that was a A-29. Never realized how mucu alike they look.

>>30747619

It's nice. It was in UAE a few days ago.

File: Northrop_P-61_green_airborne.jpg (708KB, 3144x2400px) Image search: [Google]

708KB, 3144x2400px

>>30746843

How hard would it be to modernize this design?

>>30748192

It has to invest a lot on missile defence. Wouldn't worth it.

Why do drones have such low cost per flight hour

Are they just designed better for cheap usage?
Do pilots in fighters constantly stress the fighter & increase maintenance needs?

File: image.png (477KB, 1657x1900px) Image search: [Google]

477KB, 1657x1900px

>>30746893
For COIN work? A-10's cost over ten times as much per flight hour in Syria as OV-10's do.

>>30746952
Do you not know what "permissive" means? It's all the A-10 is good for anyways, the Iraqis shot them to shit in the Gulf Wars.

>>30746982
Yeah go ahead and try hitting a plane in flight with an RPG and get back to me when you succeed.

>>30747918
kek

>>30748013
I think it's less cost of replacement and more cost of operation. No matter how you slice it, a single (or even twin) engine turboprop is going to be a fuckload cheaper than a twin engine turbojet.

And UCAVs don't seem to be the answer either, or we would just be using those already. Maybe the information infrastructure required to have drones operating is more expensive than just sending someone up in a cheap turboprop. Could also be concerns about the drone getting downed somehow (either by shooting it down or severing the data link long enough that it comes down)

>>30748291
They cost more than is normally stated >>30748308 because that usually doesn't account for high bandwidth satellite time.

>>30747619
BRRRT is worthless in any form of modern combat. Bombs and missiles do it better and cheaper, refilling that GAU-8 magazine is shitfuck expensive.

>>30748291
The ones that are cheap to fly (in terms of hardware) are also turboprops, which are simply cheaper to operate.

Notice that the Global Hawk is more expensive per flight hour than an F-15.

>>30748291
Because they're honestly built like kites. Very light weight, orientated for fuel efficiency and all that. Not flight kinematics or performance. Basically, if they did have a cockpit in them? They'd be utter deathtraps. Except they're not. They're cheap and disposable in comparison to an airplane, and the pilot. People always forget about how much a pilot costs.

>>30748333
Normally it would be just the cost of operation I believe, but once you start operating Super Tucanos and Wolverines, then cost replacement of both plane and pilot become an issue. Even if we outfit them with modern electronics and smart munitions, they're basically upgraded WWII planes. A .50 cal can give them trouble if they're spotted, and that's not to mention a MANPAD. Maybe they are the way to go, but there's definitely risk involved.

As for UCAV though, I think it's more a problem of integration. They're cheap, but the pilots are over here in the US, not over in the sandbox somewhere. There are horror stories of UCAV and UAV pilots being unable to warn a patrol of an ambush or freshly planted IED in time due to the disconnect between the two.

>>30748085
>he thinks it isn't a completely true statement
My dad has tons of stories as an A-Ganger in the Navy about all sorts of retarded bullshit.

>on ship as a ride-along
>gets asked to look at air compressor that apparently hasn't worked in months/years
>he takes it apart, cleans/lubes it and puts it back together
>starts right up
>two days later, head engineer comes back saying its broken again
>whatthefuck.jpg
>he does it again and sits there to watch it this time
>45 minutes later one of the techs actually assigned to the ship walks by to check the compressor
>adds more water/oil whatever because he thinks the sight glass is reading low
>turns out in the manual the head engineer approved it said fill 1/2 the sight glass instead of fill 1/2" of the sight glass
>they were putting in like 4 inches of water and tripping a safety on it
>for months


>he's on a sub this time, his normal assignment
>ballast blower goes out
>entire command on the boat is flipping the fuck out because they're supposed to leave the next day and swapping out the blower requires a hull cut which takes weeks or months
>dad has to politely remind them that the floor 15 feet in front of the blower unbolts so you can pull the blower out through the cargo hatch right above the floor plate
>takes all of three days to get everything done


>inna Panama Canal
>radio antenna breaks somehow
>dad knows how to fix it even though it has nothing to do with his rate
>is apparently the only one on the base that can do it for some fucktarded reason
>CO comes by and asks who's up the tower
>is fucking livid when he finds out it's some Machinist Mate instead of whatever rate is supposed to be doing that
>gives dad a commendation for being able to fix it

>>30748351
God, yes. Most people don't realize the BRRRRT is more expensive than modern bombs and missiles. All those little autocannon rounds add up really fast when you just chew through them so fast. And the thing isn't even as precise or deadly either.

>>30748085
Someone's been triggered

>>30748432
>>30748351
I find it very hard to believe that some 30mm shells are more expensive than rockets and missiles when something like a Hydra is 3k a pop.

>>30748425
more

these are great

>>30748544
Those are the only ones he's told about that kind of thing. Being a submariner there's a lot of shit he can't talk about, here's a couple more short ones from when he was stationed at the Norfolk brig.

>beds in the brig are a metal frame, has a square grid of 1/4" holes in them
>first thing you lose is your mattress, second is your TP as punishment
>dad is doing his rounds, hears "B-5" around the corner
>followed shortly by a "miss"
>starts rounding corner to see what the fuck is going on
>two of the inmates are playing battleship using the grid on the bed and their TP
>guess what they lost for a week

>CO of the brig is a cold, cruel man
>every time a ship pulls in, they get a couple guys that are to go on 3 day's bread and water (Dad got out in like '99, not sure if they still do this or not)
>CO is ready to check them in at the office
>has tables laid out
>pizza
>KFC
>soda
>ice cream
>burgers
>popcorn
>it's a cornucopia of delicious smells
>at the very end of the table is the jug of water and loaf of wonder bread

>overseeing a work detail in a shop making license plates or some shit
>they have a radio
>constant fighting over what station it's on
>sometimes gets physical
>dad is sick of it
>takes radio
>calls them all into a line
>sets the radio on the floor
>gets the tractor they used around the base for different things
>runs it over about a dozen times
>tells them to clean up the mess
>two weeks later some of them come up and ask for a new radio, they all agreed to a set schedule of what station at what day
>they follow it
>occasionally get a new guy in that tries to bitch about the station
>he is quickly silenced by the others

>>30748528
Well, it's hard to find an exact price, but it's somewhere between 50-100$. In comparison, the AH-64's 30mm costs over 100$ a round for certain. We just don't know the exact cost. If you got 1,350 rounds loaded up in your A-10, then that's a total of 67,500$ at least, and 135,000$ at worse. In comparison, a JDAM, which is basically a kit that converts a 600$ dumb-bomb into a smart one, costs about 20,000$ a pop. So for more precision AND some good, old fashioned levels of WWII era firepower, you pay less. A lot less. Wars aren't just about the tech or strategy or tactics man; logistics are a really, really big deal.

>>30748694
Well sure, I could believe a full load is worth more but you also need to consider how wide you can spread that out. That JDAM is good against what? One target? Maybe a couple grouped close together? Where as that 1350 rounds could be used against 100 different targets.

>>30748528
A full drum of 30mm costs more than a JDAM.

>>30748730
see
>>30748727
Total it might cost more, but the cost/kill ratio can be better. You don't dump all 1300 odd rounds into a single BMP.

>>30748727
Which is why APKWS is a thing.

>>30748744
There is also the consideration of the danger the gun puts your aircraft in.

>>30748791
>There is also the consideration of the danger the gun puts your aircraft in.
What?

File: AH-64 Gun.webm (475KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

475KB, 1280x720px

>>30748727
>>30748744
Dudes, I love the GAU-8, but let's be realistic here. An A-10 does oldschool strafing runs that bleed out a ton of rounds per go. It's not the most accurate thing around, so there's even a chance of missing. At worse, You can have three JDAMS, or at best, around six. Six rounds of very precise, very powerful munitions you can even tell to airburst. And an airburst fucks up a lot of shit too. The explosions are huge - we're talking potentially 500lbs worth of pure FUCK YOU and FREEDOM here. Per pop. The A-10's gun runs just aren't economical anymore, though, the AH-64's are practically surgical in comparison. And that's without what >>30748791 said too. In order to do a gun-run, you gotta go low, and you gotta go slow. You're essentially at risk for taking machine gun fire. So what if the A-10 can take a punch? Now, you gotta fix it up. That costs money. Lots and lots of money.

The A-10 was great, but I think it's time to let go.

>>30748821
What altitude do you use a JDAM at compared to a 30mm gun, cmon you are smarter than that.

>>30748849
Oh right. The way you worded it made it sound like the gun itself can cause problems.

>>30748727
That JDAM can kill 20 different guys at once, immediately--it has a wide kill radius. JDAMs are actually closer to $18k a pop and the GAU-8 is closer to $100k to top off.

That 1350 rounds comes off in preset bursts and comes off FAST, you can't spread it out as much as you think.

JDAMs are fucking AWESOME and TERRIFYING.

AF targeting analyst here, ask me anything.
>just kidding, I'm too worried about revealing something classified that I thought wasn't, don't ask me anything

>>30748870
I'll take a bite on something unrelated; how far out can an IRST detect an F-22 or F-35? The Russians and Chinese like to play up their thermals a lot. However, the impression I get is that IRST is almost knife-fight for a plane these days.

File: Piper_PA48_Enforcer_USAF.jpg (271KB, 1800x1179px) Image search: [Google]

271KB, 1800x1179px

Enforcer

>>30748845
>So what if the A-10 can take a punch? Now, you gotta fix it up. That costs money. Lots and lots of money.
More importantly, while you're fixing it it's no longer flying missions until you're done. Which means the groundpounders aren't getting their CAS.

Not that the grunts realize this while they spout adoration for the A-10.
>nor do they realize it's the B-1 who's killing all the hadji
>or in some cases doing a mach 1+ low altitude show of force pass and making hadji bleed out of his burst eardrums

>>30748335
OV-10s aren't drones

>>30748870
What kind of work does an analyst do all day?

a-10 can't "take a punch" anyways
The only thing it has is a titanium bathtub for the pilot

The whole rest of the plane is the same as any other plane.

>>30748913
Oh man, I can only think of 'Revolt of the Majors' - it made that plane sound so utterly stupid. Though, I suppose if the airspace is permissive and guaranteed to be, it might just work. Still risky though.

>>30748930
My man!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1JjpHmt7J8g

>>30748907
Yeah not even touching that.

Not really my specialty and I'd probably misremember it if I did answer anyways, I'm all about air to surface munitions and employment. The planes are cool and the A2A is pretty legit stuff, but I care about the big boom at the end (when it's not a fucking leaflet drop).

>>30748976
Bummer. The F-35 doesn't get a lot of love, though, a lot of people don't realize how messy the F-15 and 16 procurements were in comparison. I'm not an air guy myself to be honest, so I don't keep up with what's flying. I still want to ask; we got any new/interesting munitions coming up?

>>30748976
>I care about the big boom at the end (when it's not a fucking leaflet drop).
How many occasions are you aware of where someone in the chain fucked up and it ended up being a big boom delivered instead of leaflets?

>>30748962
Depends on your unit and specialty. Sitting at a computer or briefing people, generally. Sometimes something cool, but that's not the all day norm.

For me it's been:
>Powerpoint
>Reading things
>Excel
>Mil-specific database use
>Looking at pictures and digitally drawing on them
>Mil-specific software that figures out what will happen when X bomb meets Y target--this is my favorite software to use at work, and at one assignment I got to use it all the time

>>30748972
Obviously the Enforcer would not be up to spec at the moment, It's really lacking in armor and a newer engine wouldn't hurt. It's just the novelty of mustangs bombing IS that grabbed my attention. Also those hardpoints.

File: 234234232.jpg (130KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

130KB, 1920x1080px

>>30748680
>it's a cornucopia of delicious smells
>at the very end of the table is the jug of water and loaf of wonder bread

>>30749025
Yeah, the concept has endured though. With modern systems, it might just work out. Though, I haven't heard much about how well the Afghans are doing with theirs. Anyone got links?

>>30749010
I've heard of some fuckups but never that one. We have multiple steps of verification and validation along the targeting cycle.

>>30749006
The F-35 is going to be fucking amazing. I'm looking forward to it so much. Worked with Vipers and loved them but they are showing their age maintenance wise. People don't get that the F-35 is going to be like a Viper that actually has legs, and that doesn't afraid of SAMs, and has great targeting sensors built in. Everything else, I don't care about, because that alone is rock-your-socks-off. And they'll be way cheaper to maintain.

The GBU-54 isn't well known here and is relatively new, VERY nice bomb. The BLU-129 is even less well known and is sick as hell, COs love this bomb and having seen the photos of it in action I was impressed as hell. Don't let "low collateral" fool you, that means "danger close = go ahead". The MOP /is/ well known, also /relatively/ new, and everything I would love to brag about with it is classified.

>>30749084
How does the F-35 do in an anti ship role? The fiddy centers and vatniks love greentexting about '"muh harpoons" and combloc AShMs.

>>30749126
I'd have to ask a squid to give anyone a proper full answer, but JDAM + appropriate warhead + enemy ship = enemy ship in bad way, so I imagine it'd be pretty solid.

File: F-35 High Alpha.webm (693KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

693KB, 1280x720px

>>30749084
Laser guided JDAMS? Fuck yeah. And that BLU-129 sounds pretty impressive. Carbon fiber and tungsten composite case or something? Very interesting that it has a tight, but much more lethal blast radius.

And after taking the time to sift through all the shit, I can't really find anything bad about the F-35 either. From what I hear, it's handling characteristics is solid, and is a mix between the F-16 and 18 though. Something about how it can point its nose very quick.

File: LJDAM.jpg (332KB, 1400x800px) Image search: [Google]

332KB, 1400x800px

>>30749084
LJDAM is sexy as fuck, never heard of the 129 before though.

>>30749173
>>30749259
Laser JDAMs are great, an idea that was floating around for a while with a couple different desins made, though the actual means of how the GBU-54 works is a bit unexpected (look it up if curious). That said the important bit is it's a JDAM that you can lase. No more running away from the JDAM on that bike, hadji!
>inb4 use the GAU-8 or 20mm cannon instead
>guns usually just make them fall off the bike

BLU-129 isn't the weapon for every job but it is the CAS weapon from heaven, plus the weapon for when you want to kill everyone in the room... and nobody outside of the room (in a sense). Being able to target hadji that are super close to your own guys means CAS is always a thing you can provide, without worrying about blue on blue from frag.

F-35 will probably have some negative qualities, most things do. From the air to mud strike fighter perspective though it's going to be sweeeeet.

We DO give a shit about the Army/Marines on the ground, despite their thinking otherwise, especially after this whole war on terror. "Not a pound for air to ground" isn't the way of things these days. If an AF pilot can save a squad of guys from ambush then it's just as big a deal as if he'd shot down an enemy aircraft. It's a joint environment now so we actually know some of the fine folks who have to hump a ruck and we want to drink with them again.

>>30749333
please quit using the term hadji. T. USMM 2000. you hsve no idea how much nicer Jebble(jebal al li) is when jar heads

File: at-6 texan ii.jpg (2MB, 4880x2840px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 4880x2840px

You will never drop Paveways from a piston engine aircraft.

;_;

File: AT-802U banking.jpg (1MB, 1606x1094px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1606x1094px

We need to go cheaper.

>>30746843
In the modern era of high tech countermeasures instead of wild weasel GOTTA GO FAST radar and missile dodging these things actually make a lot of sense.

>control+f "reaper"
No results
>control+f "mq-9"
No results
>control+f UCAV

There we go.

The reaper is far superior to both the AT-6 and the super hue.

There is no reason for a manned dedicated light attack aircraft.

File: AT-6 Texan II 70mm laser guided rocket.jpg (281KB, 2375x1625px) Image search: [Google]

281KB, 2375x1625px

So the trainer is called Texan II and the armed version is called Wolverine right?

File: raytheon%20pyros%20large[1].jpg (187KB, 600x449px) Image search: [Google]

187KB, 600x449px

>>30749573
Even more cheaper!

File: Super Tucanos FAC.jpg (2MB, 3072x2304px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3072x2304px

Post high resolution and high quality pictures of either plane, armed.

>>30746843
that looks like some Airpirate/sky captain level shit.

10/10 would listen to an old timey radio show about them.

>>30749604
Not cost wise.

>>30749901
Don't respond to skynet posting.

So with this resurgence of low cost COIN aircraft would it be worth it become a pilot in the AF?

>>30749901
10% more unit cost for a fuckload more capable airframe.

And if it gets shot down, you dont lose the bigger investment, the pilot.

>>30749901
10% more unit cost for a fuckton more capability. The operating costs would be the same, and thats me being generous.

Better still, if the plane is lost, you dont lose your bigger investment, the pilot.

>>30749972
Except the operating costs are not the same, an aircraft like the Super Taco or Bronco do not require high bandwidth satellite connections.

>>30747224
>A1

File: Bat Bomb.png (55KB, 315x516px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 315x516px

>>30749863
Even cheaper than that!

Self-propelled is the way to go, the only problem is that they're not reusable. But, if someone is able to produce reusable, fireproof bats, we will have the most destructive weapon known to mankind.

>>30749924
>>30749972
Double post.

4chins messing up.

>>30749922
Isnt the whole point of becoming a pilot in the navy about either A. You want to live out the movie Top Gun, B. have a Ace Combat fetish, or C. want to get a job as a commercial pilot after youre out.

>>30749998
>type capcha twice
>4chin fucked up!

try learning how to delete your posts newfriend

>>30749994
They do if they want to use gps weapons.

The reaper is much smaller, much cheaper engine, uses less fuel.

>>30750007
>not being a 4chan gold member

Plebian scum, as expected from poorfag taco posters

>>30750015
>The reaper is much smaller, much cheaper engine, uses less fuel.

0 for 3

>>30750015
You don't need a high bandwidth satellite connection for GPS weapons, you only need to be receiving very basic GPS data, not live video, etc.

>>30750015
>bombs
>needing high bandwith gps

>>30750076
Wew lad, if i prove you wrong will you publicly, ITT, renounce your taco loving ways?

>>30750091
Do you even know what high bandwidth is?

>>30750087
>>30750091

The same communication infrastructure is used.

Are you saying that there is a sat used specifically for reapers and nothing else?

File: Archangel (2).jpg (302KB, 2054x529px) Image search: [Google]

302KB, 2054x529px

Meanwhile in the UAE.

They got IOMAX to deck the fuck out of Thrush cropduster.

>>30750098
go for it

>>30750121
you don't need high bandwidth to drop a bomb especially since most bombs don't rely on GPS.

>>30750100
Do you even know how GPS works?

>>30750128
Im going to need a positive yes or no to you renouncing your beliefs, before i proceed.

>>30750130
If you are dropping dumb bombs you will miss a fuckload more, thus driving up costs.

Dumb bombs are expensive, and worse, vastly ineffective in wartime conditions leading to much more expendatures.

>>30750136
already trying to worm your way out of backing up your claims?

>>30750121
A Super Taco or even something like an F-16 does not use the same infrastructure; GPS guided munitions do not communicate with satellites.

GPS works by having dedicated satellites in orbit broadcast timestamps and identifying codes; the bomb receives this data, with no bandwidth allocation necessary and triangulates its own position based off of known relative satellite positions.

In other words, GPS bombs work like TV or radio stations; they broadcast and you can have a billion people listen at the same time. Drones using satellite uplinks are like mobile phones; each broadcast uses up a limited supply of bandwidth. Because drones transmit a lot of video, they use more satellite bandwidth, meaning you need to put up more satellites to meet demand.

>>30750133
Do you? You don't use any bandwidth using GPS.

>>30749505
Those don't have pistons anon

>>30750160
Exactly.

>>30750148
You are trying to get something for nothing.

All i need is a "Yes, i will publicly denounce my belief in the superiority of the tuco" (sic) and we can proceed.

>>30750194
That isn't how this works, you made a claim and are refusing to back it up when questioned.

>>30750149
Ahh, your main issue is that you think the primary cost comes from operations of said sats. Thats not the very large majority of the lifetime costs.

Launch and the sat itself comprises this. "Data costs" are the carriers way of recouping this.

For the USAF, "data costs" are nil, because it has already been bought and paidfor.

>>30750213
Meh, i wont do basic, easy to find, work for free.

Say the statement, get the facts. Otherwise, go to a wikipage and do it yourself, im not your bitch.

Why "back up my claims" when none of it matters?

>>30750148
>>30750136
You guys are retarded:

>Reaper:
Length: 11m
Wingspan: 20m
Empty weight: 4900lb
Engine: 670kW turboprop
Fuel: 4000lb
Endurance: 27 hours (14 hours fully loaded) -> 148lb/hr

>Super Taco:
Length: 11.4m
Wingspan: 11.1m
Empty weight: 7060lb
Engine: 1200kW turboprop
Fuel capacity: 1250lb
Endurance: 8.5 hours -> 147lb/hr

>>30750217
>For the USAF, "data costs" are nil, because it has already been bought and paidfor.
>it doesn't add to the cost of flying a drone because it was billed separately

You would make a good accountant.

>>30750228
>get called out
>WHY DO YOU CARE IT DOESN'T MATTER REEEE!!!!!

>>30750237
>trying to add the total costs of muti use sat operation to one airframe

You would make a terrible one.

>>30750229
You left out wing area and empty weight

>>30750165
My mistake.

>>30750246
Do you really think it matters?

Clearly you dont, because if you did you would have done the work already. I realized this long ago with source trolls, now i just have fun.

Because its not about the facts to you, its only about being "right"

>>30750248
>trying to add the total costs of muti use sat operation to one airframe

So bandwidth used for flying a drone is bandwidth not used for something else.

>>30750263
This implies the bandwidth is at capacity 100% of the time or always in use.

>>30750261
>Because its not about the facts to you, its only about being "right"

You are speaking of yourself I presume.

>>30750282
As opposed to it being free because it is not dedicated solely to the aircraft?

>>30750290
Hey, i offered to do what another anon did, but you refused to meet the very low bar of going to wikipedia yourself, or publicaly saying you were wrong.

Today you learned out that you dont have the intellectual courage to publicly admit fault, on an anon board of all places.

What you do with that knowledge is up to you, but based on evidence it will be absolutely nothing.

>>30750297
This implies that a single aircraft takes up all of the bandwidth, which is silly.

>>30750248
Empty weight is already there; can't find any wing area figures for the MQ-9 but it's a fairly irrelevant metric anyway, you're not going to be able to fit a plane in a smaller hangar by decreasing its wing area.

File: 1468350723-new-ucas.jpg (41KB, 650x311px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 650x311px

>>30749863
Actually.....there is some tinkering going on in this direction.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/military/research/a21799/the-air-force-funding-fighter-bomber-drone/

>The drone will be capable of Mach 0.9 speeds for short periods of time, have a 1,500 nautical mile range, and be able to carry at least two GBU-39 small diameter bombs. It will feature "extreme agility" for missile avoidance. The LCASD will also be relatively inexpensive: $3 million each for the first 99, $2 million each if you buy more than 100.

>>30750338
I was going for a broad definition of "size". (Mass, physical charicteristics, etc)

>>30750356
Neat; I wonder if it'll be based off of the MALD or a target drone. Also, I hope they at least give it some shaping; despite what the article says, it's not that hard or expensive to drop RCS significantly. Also lol @ the extra 1 airframe dropping $1m from the cost.

>>30747039
Is this the plane from Jurassic Park III ?

>>30750397
Probably; it's one of the most popular aircraft of the past 40 years

>>30747619
The A-10 can't reliably BRRRT a T-62

>>30750405
Always have found it really sexy.

File: lindsanity.jpg (345KB, 1028x778px) Image search: [Google]

345KB, 1028x778px

What we need are dive bombers like they had back in the WW2. They're just as accurate as any precision bomb and plain-jane 2000lb iron bombs are a hell of a lot less expensive

>>30750432
What will be their mission type orders though?

File: 280x157-gTh[1].jpg (8KB, 280x157px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 280x157px

>>30750432
Bah humbug, you don't need those heavy bombers and things, you just need a big cannon and a lot of armour, and also for it to be very lightweight with a big powerful engine, but also very reliable and simple!

>>30750440
To attack their main battle tanks, of course. That way, our T-34s can do the real armored warfare of attacking the soft bits behind enemy lines.

>>30749924
>>30749972
>>30750015
>>30750098
>>30750100
>>30750121
>>30750133
>>30750136
>>30750144
>>30750187
>>30750194

Jesus, what a fucking tool, kys.

>>30750325
>Anon didn't admit he was wrong and you were right before you'd even stated your case
>Don't state your case
>B-b-but I'm not deflecting!

Okay, pls kys now faggot.

>>30746893
>If it ain't broke do we have any reason to fix it other than giving the military industrial complex an excuse to waste our taxes?
Do you have any idea how much profit there is in buildings that are sold to tax spending departments?

Do you know how many ex-generals I have on my board, and how many of the decision makers will be given director-ships after they retire from their DoD jobs?

There's billions to be made, that kind of money is its own reason.

>>30750478
>do something for nothing

No, join your comrad motherland and kill yourself you commie fuck.

>>30750478
No, thats not how it went at all.

>anon, the grass is green

>>PROVE IT

>Really niggah?

>>YEAH UR WRONG PROVE IT

>*sigh*...Ok, but if im right you have to admit your wrong

>>NO, PROVE IT

>No. I refuse to prove something so basic and obvious, especially considering its obvious you dont care

>>30750551
Honestly you're reaching so bad right now that I only feel embarrassed for you. How does it feel to not be knowledgeable about anything?

>>30750590
You're misrepresenting how that conversation went down.

In any case, >>30750229 shows that the anon who thought >>30750076 was correct on all counts, unless you buy the BS the retard referred to in >>30750464 was spouting.

>>30746843
>only 20
>not 200

>>30750838
Correct on 2/3 at least; the Super Taco's engine (being nearly twice as powerful) is probably a bit more expensive (not that it matters much at their price point).

>>30750888
I wouldn't be surprised if it was cheaper or cost more, but not by as much of a margin as you'd expect, simply because it's not designed to regularly operate for a day or longer.

File: enforcer_pa_48_a6_by_edward_55-d8y4egn.jpg (29KB, 562x376px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 562x376px

Clearly the Piper Enforcer is the only correct choice.
Pros:
>6 hardpoints.
>Already In AF inventory.
>It's a fucking turbo Mustang.

Cons: None.

>>30746920
Needs the version with the belly gun.

Amazing.

File: Xp-38k.jpg (20KB, 437x263px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 437x263px

>>30746920

Just makes me wish for a remade lightning instead of the F-35 Lightning 2.

>>30751134
That might even win over the retards who love the A-10 because of BRRRT memes.

File: Super Tucanos FAB.jpg (339KB, 2953x1968px) Image search: [Google]

339KB, 2953x1968px

Any got high res pictures of the Super Tucano with guided munitions?

File: MQ-9_Reaper_taxis.jpg (508KB, 3000x1673px) Image search: [Google]

508KB, 3000x1673px

You know we could just use drones.

>>30750445
Now you're thinking fourth generationally

Cropdusters are the only answer.

>>30751369
They aren't as cheap as you think.

>>30751369

The reaper is too small for this job. Something with a higher payload is needed.

And developing a new drone with a higher payload would defeat the entire point of the program: to get an inexpensive attack aircraft that can be put into service quickly.

>>30747002

>produce something similar.
>from scratch, basically

You say this to the guy holding the money and they are going to laugh.

And it's not about whether you CAN (because USA most certainly can), it's about "who will pay for this?".

>>30747262
It's so cute!

>>30751787
They're bigger when viewed in real life or from the side; they're sexy as fuck too, especially in red.

File: su-25 (1).jpg (170KB, 1500x569px) Image search: [Google]

170KB, 1500x569px

>>30746920
>The original company that developed the A-10 no longer exists
The US should just buy a license for Su-25.

File: ia_58_e_super_pucara_by_roberdigiorge-d3e7h3i.jpg (55KB, 1024x672px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 1024x672px

The Pucara says Fuck you to insurgents with a big fat F

File: 360532806_76babf80b5.jpg (77KB, 500x321px) Image search: [Google]

77KB, 500x321px

>>30751134
OH FUCK YES!!!!

I totally forgot about the Enforcer

>Blast from the past
>Fucks hadji like it fucked the Wehrmacht and dirty japs
> called Enforcer because it enforces it's license to FUCK SHIT UP

>>30748845
Damn I wish Arma 3 could do this with trackIR

>>30747045
>lets just go full it ain't me and bring back the Skyraider

I think we really should do that, or at least deploy it as COIN

>>30751894
>Only 250 rounds of dakka
No thanks

File: su-39 armament.jpg (39KB, 600x400px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 600x400px

>>30751955
>Dakka is the main component of CAS
Ri-i-ight...

File: 1396282707788.jpg (36KB, 487x720px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 487x720px

>>30748425
>>turns out in the manual the head engineer approved it said fill 1/2 the sight glass instead of fill 1/2" of the sight glass

>mfw

As a watch keeping engineer, this made me mad.

>>30751899
>almost irrelevant combat record
>rusty compass and notepad for avionics

I'm Argentinian and even I think this is retarded
the super tucano is better in every way

>>30749333
Why not make a GAU that BRRRTs JDAMS? There problem solved.

How do these prop planes compare to a (hypothetical) modernized Helldiver?

Stay with me here...

What if they make an a-10 with props?

>>30752132
>Why not make a GAU that BRRRTs JDAMS?
It's called the B1B with rotary bomb bays.

>>30752046
hows Cordoba?

>>30752389

For ground attack purposes Turboprop>Piston due to better power to weight ratio meaning they might not be super fast, but they can potentially carry a lot more ordnance.

>>30752829
To clarify, the whole thing about the Super Tucano is that it has range, loiter time, and low enough stall speed to do CAS.
But the thing is, it can do that stuff because it is prop based and not a pure jet. So why not just make a-10's with props?

>>30748308

How do they work out the cost? Is it crew pay, fuel, maintenance after flying etc.? Is the cost of the aircraft included and split for it's expected lifetime? I'm always wary of costs thrown around, because there is someone who wants a certain amount to look good, ie: manufacturer, senator looking at next years budget etc.

>>30752940
Replacing A-10 engines with turboprops would most likely require modifying the airframe quite a bit to actually make the thing flyable.

>>30752940
The A-10s are maintenance nightmares at this point. If you can buy two super tacos for the price of an A-10 and they're both in the air longer and more often, that's a win even if they can only carry half the ordnance per flight.

>>30753036
Not to mention training a pilot to fly a Super Taco takes less time than training one to fly A-10.

>>30753036
>that's a win even if they can only carry half the ordnance per flight.
Ignoring guns and gunpods, I thought it was a little more than a 1/4th as much.

>>30753060
Half as many hardpoints, a quarter the total weight. Since you can put a JDAM or a Hellfire on each hardpoint and still be under the weight limit I go by that estimate.

I for one welcome our new super tucano overlords.

Hopefully the air force will finally wise up and realize that there is no point in replacing numbers with technology if its so expensive that you just use older leftover and plentiful aircraft whenever there is any possibility of risk.
Heck, the navy might even wise up as well.


I mean for fucks sake, why even have new aircraft if they are going to be so few in number and expensive that they aren't used whenever there is any possibility of risk. That's not how force multipliers are supposed to work.

>>30753206

If risk is an issue, a UAV is far preferable.

UAV's are better than a super tucano in pretty much every performance metric.

>>30747002
>Kafkaesk
Don't use words you dont know the meaning of

>>30748212

New engines, pull missile defence from other modern prop planes? (does the Super Tucano even have a missile defence?)

I mean it worked for what it was suppose to do and with modern equipment you can greatly increase its carry weight.

>>30753239
Except cost.

>>30753206
One of the primary points of the F-35 is being able to use it where legacy aircraft are too risky.

>>30753239

There is no UAV equivalent for the A129 right now. And besides, the whole point of this program is to keep costs dow. Using an expensive drone kind of defeats that purpose.

>>30753354
DIRCM

>>30753443

The A129 Mangusta?

Its a helicopter anon.

Did you mean the A-29?

If so, the reaper is far better.

>>30753443
>the whole point of this program is to keep costs down

That would make sense if we did not already have a huge drone fleet.

>Using an expensive drone kind of defeats that purpose.

Well the A-29 is far inferior, so it makes sense it is cheaper.

>>30752975
I'd guess that the total number of flight hours with that airframe, compared to the total cost of everything associated to that airframe. So air crews, maintenance personnel, parts, fuel, ground equipment. I can tell you the reason the B1 is so costly per hour is the sheer amount of maintenance needed almost every flight.

>>30753535
>>30753563
>Reapers are better simply because they cost more

>>30746843

I don't know much about aviation but that plane looks incredible. Also it does make perfect sense to use something like that with modern COIN warfare (with of course other options for other situations extremely readily available and not a big debate, but by the wording of 'for use in permissible environments' I'm sure that is already the idea).

There were plenty of situations in Afghanistan were we called for A-10s, AC-130s, etc. that could have been replaced with a platform like this.

>>30753855

No, reapers are better because they stay in the air more than 3x longer, have better optics, and carry more ordinance.

>>30750432
[laughing anti-air weapons]

>>30748308

>The Osprey costs more per hour than the F-22, B-1, or B-52.

There must be some mistake.

>>30751134
>Already In AF inventory.
Two surviving prototypes doesn't exactly count as "already in inventory"

>>30751299
>turboprop Lightning
I never realized how much I wanted this.

>>30754207
Needs a lot of maintenance and many expensive parts that have to be replaced often.

I assume

>>30754207

In the article the ospreys metrics were taken back in 05 or some shit, the pentagon said last year they got the cost per hour down over 90%.

>>30752884
cold as fuck

>>30754207
This number was just some random number thrown out by the airforce

>>30754239

I hope to god that is true, because fuck, it would be cheaper to achieve air superiority with F-22s and lose some in the process, then build a landing strip and a harbour to ferry in troops, than using a 100 Ospreys for an assault with the muhreens.

Exaggeration, but fuck.

>>30754146
The Reaper actually carries less ordinance, unless they figured out how to pack munitions into its internal bays meant for sensors.

File: ca22942bc6c2dcd55df64eca9c657cbe.jpg (25KB, 512x384px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 512x384px

>>30748966
Wut??

>PROP PRIDE
>WORLDWIDE

>>30749173
>negative AOA
how in the actual fuck does it do that?!?

>>30754553
Yank space magic.

>>30746843
Honestly. A domestic military has little need of jet aircraft. Props are fucking cool as long as they're backed up by AA.

>>30754188
Anti-aircraft weapons are high-tech and ergo bad.

Do you even 4GW?

>>30747002
>kafkaesk
>kafkaesque
Jesus anon, how fucking stupid are you? Not only did you spell it wrong, but you obviously have no fucking clew what the word means.

>>30746893
>>30747002

Yes lets have the government design and build new planes from the ground up, build factories, and train staff on the government's brand new design based on an aircraft from the 70s, rather than wasting our tax money purchasing planes that have been tested and are already in production.

>>30751134
>single pilot
>nonexistent downward visibility
>back wheel

File: Skyraider Vietnam.jpg (87KB, 1280x878px) Image search: [Google]

87KB, 1280x878px

If you were to set out to design a prop COIN/CAS platform, would you include an internal gun? If so, multiple HMGs or a cannon?

>>30755673
I'd probably use a minigun. You still get the BRRRRRT effect on small targets but it's far cheaper to shoot than the GAU-8.

File: T-2 Texan.jpg (756KB, 1280x1024px) Image search: [Google]

756KB, 1280x1024px

>>30755743
The problem with Gatling guns is ammunition consumption. Also rifle rounds will be generally ineffective against armored targets.

>>30747224
Would you die if I took off the mask?

>>30755768
They seem to be useful on the AH-1 and AH-64, and modern COIN/CAS is all about bombs and missiles for the larger targets anyway.

File: SU25 river.jpg (1MB, 1600x1200px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1600x1200px

>>30755783
The AH-64 doesn't carry a Gatling gun/cannon as far as I'm aware. 30mm autocannon.

>>30748291
Several reasons. The MQ-1 has a very small prop engine that sips fuel like a Cessna. Low maintenance. Cheap fuel. Also your flight crews are not deployed, so you aren't paying to bring hundreds of pilots, sensor operators, and MICs overseas. You don't have to pay to house them overseas. You don't have to risk them getting mortared. They are in the US going home every day.

>>30755822
In that case I'd use a very similar system: autocannon with a steerable, ventrally mounted turret. Given the nature of COIN/CAS and the emphasis on weight, I might scale it back to 20mm rather than 30mm to save a few pounds or add some more ammunition.

>>30749084
Lol, hi liveworld. Lockheed Martin is paying enough in online reputation mitigation than the entire production run of Bronco IIs

>>30749153
>>30749126
There are specific anti-ship missiles, and her stealth profile will allow her to get into permissible range to use them.

You would not really use a JDAM on a modern warship, they'd get shot out of the sky with most variants of CIWS.

>>30751940
Fuck TrackIR, we need proper VR support for arma, wt

>>30756621
"Modern" is the key word there. How many rinky dink PLAN/PRC "Coast Guard" boats have CIWS?

If any other nation was doing this you guys would be shitting on it for using a propeller plane in the 21st century

>>30757244
Not really. Super Tacos are a perfect fit for places that don't have the infrastructure for modern fighter bombers, which is most of the world by area.

>>30747039
>>30747039

I used to fly these for the CIA. it's a big plane for sure.

>>30757446
Dr. Pavel?

File: 1422541651508.jpg (5KB, 184x90px) Image search: [Google]

5KB, 184x90px

>>30757446

File: 1459635188977.jpg (67KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

67KB, 640x480px

>>30748321
I know what permissive means. It means your enemies have little more than small arms.

It doesn't mean you're cruising around a desert desert blowing up paper cutouts and no one will ever shoot at you!

These are planes that can be taken down by small arms. They have some virtues, for sure, low cost, good visibility, good low speed maneuverability, nice weapons (for the price) but the idea either is a replacement for the A-10 is just absurd.

>>30748870
Thank you, 1N1B.

>>30757139
This basically, along with CIWS being... well let's just say the most common saying for what it stands for, according to a former CIWS tech I know, is "Captain It Won't Shoot".

>>30756311
Man I *wish* I was working for Lockheed. Nope, I'm just one of these and have been for a while: >>30757628

>>30755673
I'd make a fucking jet.
I'd just modernize the me 262 because i'm a wheraboo

>>30757593

>the idea either is a replacement for the A-10 is just absurd.

The F-35A is the true A-10 replacement.

These prop-planes will just help fill in the gaps in places where a 5th generation stealth fighter is overkill.

File: 1457906077380.png (132KB, 933x834px) Image search: [Google]

132KB, 933x834px

Let's just replace 30mm A-10s with 120mm A-10s

>>30752884
Actually it was Tucumán.

And, I should add, how are the Royal Marines?

And their Sea Lynx heli that one of those brought down?

File: AT-6B.jpg (376KB, 1600x1066px) Image search: [Google]

376KB, 1600x1066px

Super Tucano orders:
Afghanistan - 20
Angola - 6
Brazil - 99
Burkina Faso - 3
Chile - 12
Colombia - 12
Dominican Republic - 8
Eduador - 18
Ghana - 5
Honduras - 2
Indonesia -16
Lebanon - 6
Mali - 6
Mauritania - 4
Senegal - 3

Meanwhile as far as I'm aware, the T-6 Texan II has quite the number of sales as well, but solely as a trainer.

Haven't spotted any orders for the armed AT-6 Wolverine.

>>30754146
Really?
Do the Reaper actually carry more ordinance, or you're just full of shit?

>>30758961
Que?

>>30755884
1360 kg of payload is really little compared to the 1500 kg of the A29 or the aprox. 2600 kg of the Pucara.

It's just about the 1400 kg of the MQ9 Reaper.

>>30759025
I was just remembering the Pucara's combat record.

Español:
Estaba acordándome del historial de combate del Pucará.

PD: I'm also Argentinean and I'd really like to see a sort of "Pucara II". I'd be a really good contender of the T6 Texan II and the A29.

>>30759070
I was asking about the city, not the aircraft, but I too would like to see a updated pucara, also remove crumpet.

>>30757593
>I know what permissive means.

Then you know that an A-10 is overkill for COIN operations in Syria/Iraq/Afghanistan and underkill for what they were used for in Desert Storm or a peer adversary.

>>30759114

The A-10 was designed to survive in the most intense conditions imaginable. It was designed to go where the fighting was most intense and shred commies.

Stop parroting this lie that it was designed only for low intensity warfare.

Even the Air Force doesn't believe this. They've said numerous times that they're objection to keeping the A-10 is budgetary, and they if they had the money, they'd keep it going forever.

>>30759150
The A-10 was designed based on the Vietnam war. The notion that it was meant to swoop over Soviet armor zergs is a myth kept alive by desperate fanboys.

>>30759230
To add further, its performance in Desert Storm automatically debunks the idea that it could "go where the fighting was most intense and shred commies".

>>30748308

>it costs more to fly the last several planes on that list for 1 hour than I am paid in an entire year

I'm not sure I like this feel

>>30759070
GTFO /k/ you wish-you-were-white fucking nigger

Why should anyone ever take advice from a third world shithole like yours, esp after the falklands.

You are bottom of the barrel trash along with india and pakistan, get off the village computer and form a fucking flutecircle instrad you piece of CRAP.

>>30759329
If it is any consolation several of them are outdated or inaccurate.

File: image.jpg (65KB, 1024x682px) Image search: [Google]

65KB, 1024x682px

>>30746923
Anybody else want one of those Flying Legends 70% scale Super Taco kits?

>>30759360
>being this butthurt

>>30746843
im going to go with super tucano. Turbo Prop engine is way OP for its frame, Modualr as fug, mostly up to date on internals, nostalgic fighter style. only downside is payload and range compromise.

>>30759150
>The A-10 was designed to survive in the most intense conditions imaginable.
It was designed to be cannon fodder and slow down armour advances through the Fulda Gap. All several hundred A-10s were expected to be scrap metal within 2 weeks.

>>30759724

Surviving two weeks in the front wave of WW3 is a big deal kiddo.

>>30759247

>its performance in Desert Storm

You mean where it killed over 50% of Saddam's armor?

>>30759907
You don't understand. ALL of them. Not most of them. Not average life expectancy. Time to complete extermination.

File: Cessna Combat Caravan Iraqi Air Force.jpg (2MB, 3354x2232px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3354x2232px

You will never receive CAS from a Cessna.

Why even operate?

File: A-10 attack plane.webm (650KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

650KB, 1280x720px

>>30760422

And you don't seem to understand that lasting that long in the front line of WW3 would be quite an achievement. Just imagine how many tanks, armored vehicles, helicopters, and ground troops they would be taking out in that time.

>>30757244
We would mock them if they sent a prop plane against an F-16, but a prop plane with modern avionics can drop hellfires as well as an any F-teen can, so why not.

besides the predator drone is propeller too

>>30759926
>You mean where it killed over 50% of Saddam's armor?
In its role as a maverick truck, a role which is hardly unique to it nowadays. When it did try to go low and slow and brrt things it took relatively heavy losses. The Gulf War proved that medium altitude bombing was where it was at, the low levels were no longer the relative sanctuary they had been in Vietnam.

>>30759724
The A-10 was designed to do CAS and escort helicopters based on Vietnam experiences.

>>30759907
The mortality rate of aircraft like the A-10 would be horrific in a WWIII scenario.

>>30759926
That would be the F-111.

The only solution is to bring back the F-111 with F110 engines, a tail gunner, and a drone launcher.

if you're wanting this to fight sand people or starving norks why not use drones?

>>30760535
>And you don't seem to understand that lasting that long in the front line of WW3 would be quite an achievement.

A-10 fanboys are so deluded they have to use events that never happened to validate themselves.

>>30760604
They cost more.

>>30760535
Imagine how many A-10s are being taken out in that time. It's really not a long survival expectancy. I can't think of the life expectancy in the Cold War, but in Korea it's at 60 minutes. That's REALLY not good, despite you trying to twist it in the other way. Especially when you consider North Korea's significantly less capable IADS.

>>30760618

>It's okay to use events that never happened to "prove" that the A-10 is not survivable

>Pointing out that it would be taking out a shitload of enemy armor in those same scenarios is not okay

>>30760629
a 2 million dollar per-unit difference doesn't matter, especially when you don't have to risk a pilot

>>30760645
Would it though? They were unable to perform against semi competent Iraqi units like the Republican Guard and had to be replaced with F-16's.

>>30760659
>what are operational costs

>>30760632

>Implying that any aircraft is going to have a long survival expectancy under those circumstances

Of course a front-line attack aircraft is going to take causalties. But it will also inflict heavy causalties on the enemy and enable ground troops to hold positions where they otherwise would have been steamrolled.

>>30760675
Consider the fact that these same aircraft got torn the fuck up significantly worse than only Harriers and OV-10s, despite other aircraft doing EXACTLY THE SAME THING.

File: Republic_P-47N_Thunderbolt_in_flight.jpg (143KB, 1280x1004px) Image search: [Google]

143KB, 1280x1004px

>>30747045
>>30748913

Or we can just modernize one of these bad boys.

Keep the radial engine with some minor tweaks for lower altitude performance and deck it out with 20mm cannons and electronics.

>>30760708

>The aircraft doing the most front-line work gets shot up more than other aircraft.

Who would have imagined?

>>30760738
>>The aircraft doing the most front-line work gets shot up more than other aircraft.
But that's fucking wrong, you faggot. Explain why the A-10 was pulled back from attacking the Republican Guard and replaced with F-16s. Why was the F-16 able to succeed where the A-10 failed?

File: A-10 Gun Run.webm (3MB, 854x480px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 854x480px

>>30760772

The A-10 killed a HUGE amount of enemy armor during the Gulf War. As well as just tearing enemy ground forces apart. Iraqi soldiers reported that the A-10 was the aircraft that they feared most because it could perform multiple missions per day and thus had a constant presence. Combine that with the A-10's meanacing appearance and you have a plane that was a nightmare to go up against.

I really don't know about this incident you keep harping on, but it sounds like an isolated event. The A-10's overall service record in the Gulf war was phenomenal. Yeah, a few got shot down, but they did tons of damage in the process.

Because that's exactly what the A-10 was designed to do: go wherever the fighting was most intense and destroy the enemy while protecting friendly ground troops.

>>30747532

They should. C-130s are outdated in the same way an A-10 is. They are just relevant because the replacements aren't worth investing in.

>>30760885
>The A-10 killed a HUGE amount of enemy armor during the Gulf War.
So did the F-111. So did the F-16. Why don't you say a thing about those, huh?

And no, A-10s generally didn't do multiple sorties in a single day. The only aircraft that did was the Harrier.

>I really don't know about this incident you keep harping on, but it sounds like an isolated event.
The A-10 was literally barred from flying against ALL Republican Guard formations. Those were where the halfway decent IADS was, and that's where the A-10 proved nonviable. As such, they were replaced by something which could actually do the job and survive.

So no, you have no fucking clue. The A-10 was obsolete by the time it was deployed. Semi-Modern IADS could not be defeated by armor. Speed, altitude, and countermeasures were how you did it.

>>30760738
A-10's didn't do the most fronline work though, hell they never flew over Baghdad either.

>>30754851
[laughing anti-air artillery]

>>30759447
Meh, if I was gonna do a scale kit plane I'd probably get one of those 3/4 scale Mustang kits.

>>30760719
>keep the radial engine
Oh fuck no, do you have any idea the maintenance nightmare that would be? If you're gonna bring back the Jug, make it a turboprop.

>>30748845
Why cant they mount an Apache style gun on one of these coin turboprop.

Seems like a great idea to me hell just use the whole cockpit of an apache and Ork glue a pusher plane on the the back.

>>30748192
We're not fighting Martians. A-26 would be superior for ground attack.

>>30748308
Is this chart accurate?

Because, if so, it looks like the Apache beats pretty much everything else out for the best combination for firepower, sensors, flexibility, and price.

>>30748769
Beat me to it.

>>30746843
Sexy as FUCK

File: Modernaized bronco.png (410KB, 761x574px) Image search: [Google]

410KB, 761x574px

>>30746843
>>30746920