Why are we not using/rebuilding our WW2 aircraft and tanks to

>>32179387
Good thinking citizen! Give us ALL of your taxes to dig another useless money hole!

>>32179387
Why are you posting this inane shit again?
You know you're just going to get the same answers as last time.
Or do you genuinely not?

>>32179400
When was last time? This is the first time I've asked this. Link to that thread please.

>>32179387
Considering the current actual "ennemies" of the west, the question is irrelevant.

Why are we not using/rebuilding stuff which was already much more advanced back then than everything any sort of uncivilised bunch of savages would be able to produce even in 250 years from now ?

If isis dunecoons aren't demoralized by their own backwardness, what makes you think they would be by stuff looking like magic for them since they can't design anything for shit ?

Only if we went full deus vult in plate armor would they think of the fight as a fair one at this point.

And we surely won't do that.

Also the cost of rebuilding these things would be tremendously high. Especially if we were to give them the same level of safety a modern plane has to provide.

>tl;dr : modern propeller planes for COIN already exist.

...Why the fuck would you? An F-15 carries more bombs than a fucking B-29.

And if you're attacking anyone organised enough to actually have platoons, they have MANPADS and your WWII era planes are not going to get anywhere close.

And as for tanks, RPGs are everywhere.

File: Bronco.jpg (258KB, 1600x1066px) Image search: [Google]

258KB, 1600x1066px

If it's good we'll still use it, like the M2.

Bronco making a come back too, though that's vietnam era

>>32179457
>Also the cost of rebuilding these things would be tremendously high. Especially if we were to give them the same level of safety a modern plane has to provide.

What if we omit the safety and modernization? If you built them as they were back then, the engineering and production techniques would be simpler and cheaper to imitate.

>>32179472
How about this: I'll go into DCS right now and have twelve WW2 planes attack a Russian carrier. And to give leeway I'll throw in three F-86s. We'll see who's right then.

>>32179472
An Abrams wont exactly shrug off a RPG-7 either anon

>>32179491
You're still recreating multiple production lines from scratch with zero institutional knowledge, manufacturing obsolete tech no-one except a handful of borderline autistic restoration guys have touched in seventy years. You're talking billions.

File: Abramsattacked.webm (3MB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1280x720px

>>32179503

but it will though

all modern tanks will

>>32179457
>Also the cost of rebuilding these things would be tremendously high.

This is the real problem. Updating WWII-era aircraft to modern standards is expensive enough that it makes a lot more sense just to build a plane from the ground up.

Also, there are only tiny numbers of any given WWII aircraft left, and most of them are at or beyond their airframe lives. The ones that still fly have to be babied, with light loads and gentle maneuvers, because they're not structurally sound for real operation anymore.

Another factor is that they're very high maintenance aircraft, there are no crews trained to do that maintenance, and spare parts are nonexistent. Even with a zero-life aircraft you'd have to replace the piston engines with turboprops to make them practical, which would in turn require major structural changes to accommodate those engines, new fuel systems and tanks to handle fuel, and avionics and controls to operate them. Then you'd need to add modern communications, IFF, and navigation systems, modern countermeasures, and all of the systems required for modern ordinance.

WWII aircraft had shit payloads, too. A single F-15E on an 700mi mission can carry the bombload of 5 or 6 B-17s.

File: 9486a858790b73f3ec7a7ea85e386b07.jpg (250KB, 800x1067px) Image search: [Google]

250KB, 800x1067px

>>32179411
Well, I honestly thought I wouldn't find it but here it is.
http://desuarchive.org/k/thread/30025534/#30025534
You have a mental sickness, OP.
talk to someone

File: Scruffy.gif (1MB, 192x144px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 192x144px

>>32179531
>Abrams hears ya

>>32179411
>When was last time? This is the first time I've asked this.

Every single fucking "we shuld bring back battleships" thread.

Every single fucking "we should re-tool P51 Mustangs for ground attack" thread.

>>32179387
I think stories of entire towns and hamlets vaporized by shots they never saw or heard is eay more demoralizong. Also anti air isnt completely incompetent over there.

>>32179411

Like clockwork.

File: X1A_Stuart.jpg (235KB, 1016x762px) Image search: [Google]

235KB, 1016x762px

>>32179387

For tanks, it's redundant; we already have far, far more Abrams than we know what to do with, and the Griffin is better than even the most modernized relics from WWII if you want something in the Sherman's weight class.

For aircraft, all the infrastructure needed to manufacture them is lost and the money required to restart it just isn't worth it, which is a shame as many of them would have been great in COIN.

File: wmplayer_2016-12-01_16-25-24.png (1013KB, 1777x781px) Image search: [Google]

1013KB, 1777x781px

>>32179523
>>32179641
>>32179559
>>32179817


Ok fine assholes. You win this round.

I'll post the video in a second

>>32179688
>Every single fucking "we should re-tool P51 Mustangs for ground attack" thread.


Why shouldn't we?

>>32179892
Well, it's because it's a retarded idea, just like your conception.

>>32179907
You haven't said why though. If the Tucano can do it, why can't the P-51?

File: uss-constitution-tomahawk-test.jpg (733KB, 1500x1072px) Image search: [Google]

733KB, 1500x1072px

>>32179387
Hasn't worked well in the past

File: 140923-F-EU155-015.jpg (2MB, 2100x1500px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2100x1500px

>>32179892
It's been tried and didn't really go anywhere. Like others have said, it's easier to just design a new plane from the ground up.

Cool plane, though.

My own pet idea would be a modernized Skyraider with a turboprop. That one was tried and failed too, but it failed because '50s turboprops were shit, not because the concept was a bad one. The Skyraider, unlike the Mustang, was already designed for the CAS role, had an incredible payload for its era, was extremely survivable, and served recently enough that modernizing it would be a lot easier. It also shares a lot of the A-10's best features, like a long loiter time and good performance at low speed and altitude.

File: wmplayer_2016-12-01_16-30-06.png (920KB, 1817x1015px) Image search: [Google]

920KB, 1817x1015px

I made a video of OP's retarded scenario using his challenge in >>32179491 .

Watch as the obsolete shitheaps get torn from the sky by the Reds. These were their most advanced fighters of their day. If this doesn't answer the question I don't know what will.

>b-but it's a ship!

They'd face the same opposition with manpads and even if they slipped through our last-ditch AAA is radar guided.

https://my.mixtape.moe/cgbxfk.webm

>>32180038

Who said carriers weren't armed?

>>32179976

I hate to be the person who defends the A-10, but isn't that already the job of the A-10, which /k/ is itching to retire for the F-35? Why should we replace the A-10 with a slightly worse airframe?

File: 20160606_103349-1.jpg (3MB, 2899x1725px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 2899x1725px

>>32179387
>I want to use a 74 year old plane for combat
>I don't care about the history that is lost when one gets shot down

You didn't think this through, did you?


>>32179559
Half yes, half no.

Modernization of ww2 aircraft is not hard.
All you do is just slap in some new comm/nav radios with new antennas, transponder, and add an ELT to be legal. Just about everything else can be original ww2.

While we do baby the engines to reduce maintenance and to get the most life out of them, the airframes are pretty good, depending on the manufacturer and model of the plane, of course.
B-25s for example hardly have any wing issues, while the A-26 is known to have cracks in the wing carry through structure. T-6 Texans are still considered fully aerobatic, and continue to do just that.
Our C-47 has almost 47,000 hours on the airframe, I think the highest time C-47 is at roughly 120,000 hours. Our plane never went through a restoration or sat out in a field. She has been flying since 1942.
Since the airframe is overbuilt, the main concern isn't with cracks or metal fatigue, it's corrosion. We pump the airframe with Corrosion X at every 100 hour inspection, which solves that problem.

Yes maintenance is relatively high, and it takes experienced mechanics to troubleshoot problems, however, radial engines still produce 1425 horsepower cheaper than Turbo-props.

A Wright R-1820-76D is about $40k - $50k and they will last 1500 hours TBO give or take 500 depending on cycles. Cylinders last 500 hours, costs about $10,000 to overhaul 9 cylinders on the engine.

A Pratt & Whitney PT-6-67R costs almost a million, with 6,000 hours TBO.
The PT-6 burns 45 gallons more fuel per hour.

>>32181334

right

do you have a single source from a thinktank that supports this

What is it with Trump winning and BBfags, 12 year olds and now OP with dude weed lmao ideas coming out of the woodworks? There seems to be a correlation.

File: 20161013_132056.jpg (2MB, 3264x1836px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3264x1836px

>>32181382
Been maintaining a C-47 since 2011. I took over as Director of Maintenance in 2013.
I have about 1 years maintenance experience on a B-25.
I volunteered weekends on an A-26 restoration from 2010 to 2014, mostly airframe.

Pic is my truck with a fresh overhauled Wright R-1820-76D in the back. I know how much they cost because I wrote the check.

>>32180038
>they all instantly turn away the instant a missile is launched at them, so they can be picked off one by one
>instead of just pressing the attack

Proptip, strategy at that time for attacking a ship was to keep attacking until it sank, you were out of ammunition, or you were dead.

>>32179953
What. Explain this shit.

>>32184443
Nevermind, I'm a gullible idiot.

File: cruiseMissile.jpg (37KB, 680x510px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 680x510px

>>32184443
>>32184452
I'm glad my old shitty shoop got some use

>>32179387
if they uparmored PBYs...added stealth coating to them and gave them 2 waist 50 cals and a double chin turret one with hellfire missile outriggers...id sign up for the airforce tomorrow.

>>32181707

That's fucking sick. Wish I had a job like that.

>>32181707

OK that's great and all, but again is there any other body of work that supports this?

>>32185196
Support what specifically?

For your "modern standards" topic, you'll find the required equipment for aircraft can be found in the FAR part § 91.205. Part § 91.207 are the requirements for the ELT.

B-25 and A-26 airframe issues can be found on the FAA website under Airworthiness Directives.

For the overbuilt design of the C-47, read a book called "The Legacy of the DC-3"

Pricing and TBO on 1820s can be obtained from Google or Anderson Aeromotive (expensive), Global Aircraft engines, and Chester Roberts Supply.

Pricing and TBO on pt6s can be found with a Google search.
Try the Basler Turbo conversions website too.
However, their website compares the PT6A-67R to the PW R-1830, which only puts out 1200 HP.

>>32179387
am i to believe that a zpu piloted by abu hajjar would not fuck a pbj or any mitchell variant to shit? they were paper to 1940s 30mm, anything today would blyat those beautiful birbs