Light attack trials are underway at my old base. Looks like they're

>>34820346
Apparently the Tucano and Wolverine are considered "Tier 1" while the Scorpion and Longsword are considered "Tier 2" as of now. That said I don't think the latter two have actually completed their round yet. After this round is over apparently they may do a combat trial in the Middle East.

>>34820486
The Afghan Air Force has been using Super Tucanos for a while now. I hasn't no idea how effective they've been, though.

The Super Taco isn't going to be selected now that Nigeria has been approved to buy it.

>>34821245

Why does that matter?

>>34820346
I'd hope the Scorpion or Longsword, I don't want my Air Force to be flying a huehue monkey plane.

>>34820346
No Bronkos?

File: longsword-l3[1].jpg (1MB, 3792x2528px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 3792x2528px

As for me, I like the air tractor.

>>34821371
How much do they need to withstand?

>>34821403

The air tractor is heavily armoured, if thats what you mean.

>>34821426
I could probably defeat it in close combat, doubt it could stop my katana.

>>34821371
I'll bet a lot of HSLD Air Force pilots would be disappointed to learn they're gonna fly an air tractor. I'd fucking love it.

P51 mustang

File: 1358375404632.jpg (1MB, 1600x1067px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1600x1067px

Skyraider

File: skyraider with toilet 1.jpg (61KB, 700x373px) Image search: [Google]

61KB, 700x373px

>>34822695
This!

>>34820346
dont the Sorks/Lockheed make a $20 mil F-16 supersonic trainer? why not get those? Limited AA (just in case of choppers) + mounts + it would be a new trainer

File: ENFORCER-PA-48-A6.jpg (25KB, 560x374px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 560x374px

>>34822624

That's a funny way to spell Piper Enforcer.

Holding trials, and possibly buying a plane specifically for COIN seems really inefficient. Moreso than just having a current fly out for air cover.

>>34823283
It'd be cheaper than sending a high-end fighter to do it, or even cheaper than sending an A-10.

>>34823327
Depends on how many you have, and how many pilots you now have to stick into a COIN-only pipeline.

>>34823352
I think the current plan is for something like ~300

File: OA-X-Scorpion.jpg (551KB, 2250x1500px) Image search: [Google]

551KB, 2250x1500px

Dumping a few pics of the test.

File: OA-X-Scorpion-2.jpg (264KB, 2000x1333px) Image search: [Google]

264KB, 2000x1333px

>>34823414

File: OA-X-Scorpion-3.jpg (130KB, 2250x1500px) Image search: [Google]

130KB, 2250x1500px

>>34823424

>>34823424
Man, it looks great.

Too bad I don't think it's gonna win. Still too immature. If it pulls it off somehow i'll be happy though.

File: OA-X-Super-Tucano-A-29-1.jpg (245KB, 2000x1333px) Image search: [Google]

245KB, 2000x1333px

>>34823443

File: OA-X-Super-Tucano-A-29-2.jpg (160KB, 2000x1331px) Image search: [Google]

160KB, 2000x1331px

>>34823454

File: OA-X-Super-Tucano-A-29-3.jpg (176KB, 2000x1297px) Image search: [Google]

176KB, 2000x1297px

>>34823469

File: OA-X-Wolverine-AT-6-1.jpg (432KB, 2000x1331px) Image search: [Google]

432KB, 2000x1331px

>>34823482

File: OA-X-Wolverine-AT-6-2.jpg (388KB, 2000x1331px) Image search: [Google]

388KB, 2000x1331px

>>34823489

Last one.

>>34823451

Some of USAF requirements are cheap maintenance and combat tested, which Scorpion has any of those.

Video of the tests.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oa6yJrQYNQc

>>34823515
Those weren't requirements. The Longsword is getting dropped because it doesn't have an ejection seat and the Scorpion is getting dropped because it can't operate from unimproved runways (i.e. just a dirt strip in a forest).

>>34823617

I think it is tho since the main reason is the A-10 high flying cost.

Also why put guns in a farm plane?

>>34823414
I'm rooting for the best plane to win, but really hope it's this one.

>>34823799

Can't land on non-paved fields and isn't combat tested, sorry.

>>34820346
>A29 Super Tucano
This

>>34821371
>that cockpit
I'm getting IL2 feels, and let me tell you they are good

File: 1200px-OA-37B-1.jpg (174KB, 1200x792px) Image search: [Google]

174KB, 1200x792px

>>34823259
That's a funny way to spell A-37 Dragonfly

>Lockmart logo on AT-6

We already know the winner.

File: A29 Super Tucano.webm (2MB, 854x480px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 854x480px

>>34824197

>>34824260

This plane is so aesthetic I really wish it was still in active service with the USAF for combat.

>>34823414
>>34823424
>>34823443
Am I the on my person who thinks it looks like a retarded f/a-18?

>>34821371
Looks like they hung a bunch of hardpoints on a crop duster?

>>34824940

It screams F-14 from the back.

>>34823414
Wow, lifting body much?
>>34824940
>>34824961
2nd'd

>>34824435
>>34824197
The national shame we'll have to endure if this gets selected.

>>34825151

Why?

>>34825151
I can see the Texan winning. It lost to the Tucano before, but that was for a separate program. This is for use by the US, and the US already operates ~800 of the things. The cost savings are attractive.

>>34825188
Its a huehue plane, as well made as a Taurus product

>>34825188
>Buying a Brazilian aircraft

Not even the Europoors would do this

>>34823582
I like the parts where the pilots do their walk-arounds and pretend they have any idea what they're looking at.

>>34823617
>can't operate from unimproved runways (i.e. just a dirt strip in a forest)
We bring fucking rapid runway everywhere we go, anyway
t. former AFSOC

>>34825257
I think the Scorpion has had the same set of test pilots for a few years now. They know their plane by this point.

>>34825285
Yeah, I find it sort of dumb. People bitched that the F-35B can't do that either, when is it even going to come up?

Plus, these aircraft are meant for use bombing technicals and shit in clear airspace. By the time it's safe to deploy them they'll have a proper airstrip set up.

>>34825303
>People bitched that the F-35B can't do that either, when is it even going to come up?
Not that with the B it matters. If you can do a rolling takeoff with a Blackhawk from it, you can do the F-35B.

>>34825288
>pilots
>knowing anything mechanical or technical about their aircraft
Clearly you've never dealt with pilots.

>>34825233
>>34825248


Idk about BR industry but i know Embraer makes lots of good planes.

I think Portugal bought their new cargo plane.

>>34824960
It's perfect

>>34825257
You're projecting, anon

>>34825338
I wouldn't trust anything made or designed in Brazil

>>34820346
AT-6 or A-29

>>34825355
Do you have any idea how many times I've told pilots to read their flight manual or that something is "like that" on every configuration of a particular airframe?

>>34820346
>tfw Boeing hasn't built and submitted an OV-10X yet

hurry up you fucks its not like you're strapped for cash or anything

>>34824960

That is what they did, yes.

>>34825403

Well that's your opinion.

The matter of the fact is the A-29 is the only who covers all USAF's requirements.

>>34825452
Humiliating if it does get the contract, flying a non-American plane because of some irrelevant shit like unimproved runways

>>34825151
We already issue Belgian rifles and Italian handguns. Who cares at this point?

>>34825573

Well by that logic it's Humiliating that both "Tier-1" designs aren't American.

I just want the best. product for the Air-Force, wether be American or foreign.

>>34825209
>I can see the Texan winning

the T-6 texan got dropped from the competition

>>34824197
Fuck you BR monkey

>>34825646
You sure? I thought the Tucano and Texan were moving on to a combat trial while the Scorpion and Longsword got dropped.

>>34825704
Pretty fucked up

"The Texan failed to qualify for the Light Attack/Armed Reconnaissance program, because the USAF mailed the exclusion notice to the wrong address, leaving the company with no time to protest the decision"

>>34825721
That's not the competition we're talking about, that was a couple years ago.

>>34823259
>tfw turbo Mustang never

She was too good for this world.

>>34825615
>Well by that logic it's Humiliating that both "Tier-1" designs aren't American.

The AT-6 is American.

Aren't they also competing for LASSO program?

>>34825746
Technically this isn't really a competition at all. This is a demo to see if there should be an actual RFI.

File: 1437273585728.jpg (1022KB, 2126x1721px) Image search: [Google]

1022KB, 2126x1721px

>>34825732
they still kept the texan out

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_Attack/Armed_Reconnaissance

>>34825762
The Wolverine is a Texan anon.

>>34825615
Actually it is, now are FREEDOM skies are being besmirched by the same planes 3rd worlders fly designed by 3rd worlders.

>>34825777

AT-6 is Swiss design.

>>34825869
Better Swiss than BR

>>34825991

The AT-6 is a adapted trainer while the A-29 is purpose built for CAS.

>>34824960
the ideal haji killer

>>34825991
>Better Swiss than BR
the a-29 is based off the PC-9 and PC-12 both are swiss

>>34826033
and the F-15 was built for air-to-air, yet the F-15E was the best 4th gen strike/fighter-bomber in the world.

>>34820346
The real question: Officer or enlisted in the back seat

>>34826291
>Officer or enlisted in the back seat
I second this

File: 1424857990338.png (10KB, 426x364px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 426x364px

Any word on a carrier variant?

>>34821371
>As for me, I like the air tractor.

If I had one of these I would totally paint it 1980s Aggressor camo

Me: LOOK OUT MAVERICK HE"S GOT MISSILE LOCK NEENEENEENEENEENEENEENEEENEEE
Tower guy: ?????

>>34821371
as for me, i like the spicy McChicken sandwich

File: T-27 IRGAF.jpg (396KB, 1200x800px) Image search: [Google]

396KB, 1200x800px

>>34826262

No, it's based off the T-27.

>>34824960
Yes. That's exactly what they did.

>>34826311
Navy is looking to use the a-29 for SOF

File: is that a steel frame from 1988.jpg (193KB, 950x950px) Image search: [Google]

193KB, 950x950px

>>34826262
>the a-29 is based off the PC-9 and PC-12 both are swiss

>>34821371
>>34821506
>>34824960
What's great is I'm listening to C&C Generals music while I write because it's sterile and I like the taste, but just real quick I checked /k/, saw this thread, saw that, and yeah.

>USA captures GLA assets
>neat we can make the worst units
>realizes they're not all bad
>some are actually hilariously good
>starts making crop duster COIN

This is the one that needs to win.

>>34822695
>>34823185
I thought the requirement was light? Skyraider's like that skinny guy holding up a ride at a county fair going "wait bro, my girl is gonna be here" and then you see this gigantic fucking yeti elbow-checking five year olds grunting about how she's gonna "make the Hurlwind her bitch."

>>34823259
>>34825735
This probably would have been the best option back in the day, but aforementioned lardo crushing beer cans on her gigantic head existed so there was no point.

>>34824260
I think this is probably the best option besides the Skyraider.

>>34821506
>I'll bet a lot of HSLD Air Force pilots would be disappointed to learn they're gonna fly an air tractor.
That just proves their a bunch of faggots. That plane is awesome.

File: AIR_International_Page_01_02.jpg (733KB, 2106x1500px) Image search: [Google]

733KB, 2106x1500px

It's a shame that they won't let the IOMAX Archangel participate because it doesn't have an ejection seat despite the fact that they made a special exception for the AT802L
http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/13218/late-addition-to-the-usafs-light-attack-experiment-sparks-drama-online

File: 1280px-C-82.jpg (345KB, 1280x982px) Image search: [Google]

345KB, 1280x982px

How much merit does this concept actually have? I thought this shit was just a talking point vice and garbage 'defense journals' like war is boring brought up.

>>34826325
>Not the Wendy's Spicy Chicken
Heretic.

>>34822695

I love the Skyraider. It has a side Door.

>>34823259

Mustang: WW2 fighter legend, Korean War workhorse, air racer, twin cockpit frankenstein badass, wingtip-tanked turbo attacker

How can one aircraft be so based?

>>34826439

>Skyraider's like that skinny guy holding up a ride at a county fair going "wait bro, my girl is gonna be here" and then you see this gigantic fucking yeti elbow-checking five year olds grunting about how she's gonna "make the Hurlwind her bitch."

You totally lost me with this one.

>>34828163
Imagine the skinny guy has a radio and some green fatigues and the carnie is VC. Does that clear it up for you?

>>34828184

Are you trying to imply that these light attack aircraft would end up being nothing more than armed spotter craft for heavy hitters?

File: to be frank I'm disgusted.jpg (13KB, 401x301px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 401x301px

>>34828196
Serious question, but are you stupid?

>>34825337
Clearly you've never dealt with test pilots.
Also what pilots do on the walk is make sure nothing's missing and that all the "remove before flight" tags are removed.

File: Enforcer 1.jpg (77KB, 500x321px) Image search: [Google]

77KB, 500x321px

>>34823259
'Stang, the magic warhorse
A Bird of days long gone
Came to fly in the evening sky in a Land called Afghanistan

>>34828209

Did I accidentally hit a nerve by having the gall to ask you to explain your retarded analogy?

Also, as was the Bronco more of an armed observator than a pure ground attack aircraft, the LAAR program seems to be more interested in tactical availability and ISR capabilities than weaponry.

>>34826439
what the fucks wrong with you

File: way to read, you fucking idiot.jpg (62KB, 500x634px) Image search: [Google]

62KB, 500x634px

>>34828308
No, I'm just asking because you're clearly a fucking retard. Let's hold your hand and walk you through this because you really are as dumb as the prophecy says:

First off >>34822695 and >>34823185 discuss the A-1 Skyraider, a rather chunky-looking plane famous for it's effectiveness in the conflict in Vietnam. Remember this. Vietnam. Remember. (I said it twice because you are, in fact, stupid)

Then I said the comment that confused you here: >>34826439
>I thought the requirement was light? Skyraider's like that skinny guy holding up a ride at a county fair going "wait bro, my girl is gonna be here" and then you see this gigantic fucking yeti elbow-checking five year olds grunting about how she's gonna "make the Hurlwind her bitch."

You expressed confusion here: >>34828163 ("You totally lost me with this one")

So then in >>34828184 I expanded the analogy a bit by clarifying that the fat girl was, in fact, the Skyraider. Remember Vietnam? This is important because I also explained that her skinny boyfriend was an analogy for the standard-issue American serviceman with radio down in the jungle.

You somehow completely fucked that up here >>34828196 because you eat crayons.

I ask if you're stupid: >>34828209

You imply that you might have "hit a nerve" by "having the gall" to explain my "retarded analogy." This is humorous because, as I've just established, the retard is you. Then you double-down and chatter on about the Bronco despite that never having come up in conversation.

I enjoyed writing this post, it gave me a crisp sense of smug satisfaction.

P.S. You are dumb.

File: 1495646630336.webm (489KB, 720x480px) Image search: [Google]

489KB, 720x480px

>>34828366
Are you autistic? What the fuck are you talking about?

>>34828366
autism

File: 1500197461210.gif (668KB, 500x281px) Image search: [Google]

668KB, 500x281px

>>34828366

File: heres your reply.gif (415KB, 480x238px) Image search: [Google]

415KB, 480x238px

>>34828372
>>34828373
>>34828375
>but I still don't understand!
I can only do so much for you, at some point you're going to have to either sink or swim.

This is why we need to purge the mentally retarded. (psst, you're a moron)

>>34828395
>>34828366
>>>/reddit/

>>34823283

Modern 4th - 5th gen combat aviation is so expensive that actually, that isn't necessarily true considering how much use the USAF is getting in COIN. Personally I think the AT-6 should get it because of the commonality with the USAF trainer, meaning that there are both cost savings in logistics due to airframe commonality, but that every single pilot, combat or not, in the USAF is already trained with the aircraft.

File: m-18 cropdusting forever.jpg (267KB, 1024x692px) Image search: [Google]

267KB, 1024x692px

>>34824960
>>34821371
Is the original base of that thing the M-18 Dromaeder?

File: rpg cute anime bulldozer.png (1MB, 1200x1578px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1200x1578px

>>34823414
>>34823424
>>34823443
Man, it's fat but cute. Looks so comfy, like a baby F-15.

File: cropduster as fuck m-18.jpg (850KB, 1280x884px) Image search: [Google]

850KB, 1280x884px

>>34828590

if we bring up oldschiol beauties, why no thunderbolt? why no shturmovik, or the all slayin' butcher bird, the Focke Wulf 190? The airframe should do the trick, just slam some eletronics on it and bomb some nogs. with style.

>>34820346
Textron will win this trial, simply because the generals have dinner every other week with their CEOs.

>>34828711
Because everything made in WW2 was made with manufacturing techniques and materials that nobody would dare touch with a ten foot barge pole nowadays, both for safety as well as efficiency reasons.

>>34828770
>safety as well as efficiency reasons
Safety, maybe. Efficiency, no. You don't get to push out hundreds of airframes per week with low efficiency. Also, most older aviation tech were over-engineered to compensate for the then engineering uncertainties. Nowadays we build stuff to really close tolerances to cut cost and weight.

>>34828790
Nigga that shit back int he day was fucking riveted! Nowadays we weld (or ultra-epoxy-glue) everything that we can get away with, can you imagine the weight savings?
>Over-engineered
There is no such thing as over-engineering in aircraft. If you overbuild an aircraft, it won't take off. You're always riding the razor edge of efficiency.

BRING BACK THE CESSNA SUPERTWEET

File: Stukas.jpg (305KB, 750x1074px) Image search: [Google]

305KB, 750x1074px

>>34828711
Because, as for tanks, artillery guns and small arms, the machine-tools have long been discarded. Also, we have far better materials available (I don't think Aluminium and Titanium were widespread during WW2). So you would have to recreate all the assembly line to make these things, based on defunct models (re-purposing period aircraft taken out from the museums is out of the question. Airframes have a limited life expectancy.).

Also, where would you find room to place modern avionics, sensors and sighting systems ?

>>34823216
Low loiter speeds is part of the requirements.

>>34828222
It's more of a tradition/good luck thing, the maintainers have checked the thing before flight properly, besides, weapon safety remove before flight keys are in place during startup

>>34824940
That is the first thing I thought when a saw it too
"Someone slapped some chromosomes on an F18C"

>>34828940
Unescorted stukas over London? Those things got raped constantly.

File: 1502301008042.jpg (51KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 500x500px

>>34825303
Being able to land on dirt strips means is can potentially be used for CASEVAC and resupply in an emergency or when there's no other option for some reason. But helos do it better.
But this whole program feels like the result will be an aircraft that is too slow to provide the rapid response CAS that was relied on in Afghanistan, but less lethal than a heli.
Instead of a cheap low complexity plane, how about a cheap low complexity attack helo and more light-medium artillery (105mm) with more accuracy? Infantry units are getting their own drones. Helos and light drones will spot targets better than a slow flying plane, more access to artillery is a faster reacting force multiplier in COIN...
Can anyone explain the advantages of this concept? Outside of a COIN environment it's dead meat.

File: bloodborne blood pc screen.png (218KB, 800x590px) Image search: [Google]

218KB, 800x590px

>>34828996
>a fucking attacker
>casevac
YEAH RIGHT, just cram that fucker with his two legs amputated below the knee into the copilot's lap and watch all the fucking blood short-circuit the electronics

>>34829006
In that case I would belive you would take the co-pilot out

And i'd rather head of to the field hospital sitting up than not head of att all.

>>34821255
The airforce won't use a plane that some other country is using. They want to maintain technological superiority.

>>34829017
In a low tech concept?

>>34829013
This is against so many fucking doctrinal concepts I can see the 1st SGT reat you a new one even if you aren't in the armed forces at all
(you retard)

>>34829006
I only meant to imply it was possible in a pinch, not a primary use case. Like having guys sat on the sides of Apaches.

>>34829018
It's more of a low budget concept.

File: ov-10_hero_med_01_1280x436[1].jpg (181KB, 1280x436px) Image search: [Google]

181KB, 1280x436px

Can you bring me back into service Air Force senpai?

>>34829028
Isn't part of the requirements for it to be very simple and easily maintained in field? How much room for technological superiority is there in something like this?
I'm seriously asking, I don't know.

File: OV-10-Bronco.jpg (37KB, 741x421px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 741x421px

>>34829110
The Bronco, especially the D, would probably be best out of all of these aircraft. The ventral 20mm is legit as fuck.

Plus the damn thing is carrier tested already. Its more than ideal especially if modernized with all the new tech.

What about the mosquito? Sure you can get those things in a flat pack from IKEA.

>>34829165
I did some quick reading on wikipedia about it and it seems like it had some problems with climbing during vietnam, but out side of that it's still used by the philippines and was dropped by the marines after desert storm.

File: 9034e1f56258840233120623c1cdf093--vintage-air-planes.jpg (27KB, 700x450px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 700x450px

Pucara anyone? Now Argentina's front line fighter due to all jets being grounded.

>>34829242
Future For Canada.

>>34829165
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P6iI9NfNTpk

>>34829020
So in case it was the only thing available you still dont think it would have been used? I mean people ride the outside of Apaches for fucks sake...

>>34829310
It's not my choice to do, because the pilot would never do it, and if he would he'd get obliterated by command.

>>34829133
>Isn't part of the requirements for it to be very simple and easily maintained in field? How much room for technological superiority is there in something like this?

high-complexity items aren't hard to repair if you're OK with "repair" meaning "pull it out and insert a new one" instead of "make the old one work again."

Which commits you to a stupid long logistics tail but hey, air force officers amirite?

>>34828796
Lots of over engineering in older stuff, they didn't have modern computer aided design and manufacturing tech.

>>34829345
If by over engineering you mean needlessly complicated then yes, the Nazis were champions at that sort of bullshit.

>>34829017
>The airforce won't use a plane that some other country is using. They want to maintain technological superiority.

That is a stupid fucking thing.

They might as well stop carrying rifles because those are worse planes than the russians use.

>Only 30 bullets
>Can't even fly

>>34829423

By which I mean - of course you want your fighter to be superior to their fighter. Because you don't want to lose dogfights.

But you're not going to lose bombing runs if you use the same bomber. What the fuck are they even thinking.

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

302KB, 2054x529px

IOMAX here, L3 sucks dick.

>>34828996
Can I get a serious response to my question here?
This competition is the USAF's answer to a perceived need to provide better fire support during COIN campaigns. COIN mostly looks like dispersed infantry based in FOBs and OPs spread throughout a wide area of conflict. It's not practical to have a high force concentration everywhere, so it's important to react quickly to engagements with strong support.
The fear is the F-35, will be unable to provide this because it's not suited to long loiter times, expensive etc. But it's fast.
Currently, attack helis are the most potent support asset but they're much slower than jets. Artillery is inaccurate to use too close to in, or in some areas, and doesn't provide the reconnaissance utility of aircraft.
But why not have a 3 forces approach to COIN doctrine? Army units get indigenous drones to act as observers, which also gives them better ability to prosecute engagements without support and keep higher situational awareness. Better medium artillery with guided rounds would also provide a faster responding force multiplier than even fast jet aircraft. Deploying more artillery has got to be cheaper than constantly having fast jets hitting afterburner just to JDAM some durka in a bush. And it's easier for ground forces to train and develop doctrine with artillery.
Meanwhile AH64s are much better than even dedicated ground attack aircraft like the A-10 when once they're on station, because they can more easily observe the effects of their fires and don't need to keep coming around.
It just seems nonsensical to go back to one seat turboprops when we could do the same concept but in the form of a light attack heli gunship with a 20-25mm gun, hydras and hellfires. But low maintenance requirements and low cost.

>>34829406
Modern Germans do it too, they seem to be naturally inclined to it. I meant more like building things heavier and stronger than necessary due to lack of computer aided design to fully optimize things.

File: ah-1z.jpg (65KB, 857x534px) Image search: [Google]

65KB, 857x534px

>>34829516
>when we could do the same concept but in the form of a light attack heli gunship with a 20-25mm gun, hydras and hellfires. But low maintenance requirements and low cost.

so you mean pretty much exactly the USMC's zulu cobras?

>>34828996
You do realize turboprops have much faster top speed than attack helos right? As well as higher payloads, translating to more armor and armaments.

>>34829948
>>34829882
What if they put a pusher prop on a cobra?

File: Lockheed_AH-56_Cheyenne.jpg (141KB, 800x554px) Image search: [Google]

141KB, 800x554px

>>34829962
now you say this.....

File: 1482477364485.jpg (357KB, 1415x640px) Image search: [Google]

357KB, 1415x640px

>>34829980
That's why I said it.

>>34822695
It was too pure for this world.

>>34829962
>>34829980
There's still the issue of loiter time, and that alone does not give as much payload

File: image.jpg (79KB, 544x960px) Image search: [Google]

79KB, 544x960px

>>34828366

>>34825412
None, unless you can actually give specific examples instead of quoting youtube comments from other fake crew chiefs

File: austim.jpg (51KB, 514x536px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 514x536px

>>34828366

>>34829110
>>34829165
DEAR MOM YOUR SON IS DEAD

File: 1502214504882.jpg (10KB, 220x220px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 220x220px

>>34828366
>I enjoyed writing this post, it gave me a crisp sense of smug satisfaction.

The autism is real

>>34829882
Yeah, or a newer more modern airframe designed to be based out in the sticks and operate with little maintenance/logistical support.

>>34821371
>for those days when you need to pulverize crops with pesticides during the bay, and bomb ISIS at night

>>34825233
That's bullshit and you know it.

>>34823424
>that wing root/intake intersection

it triggers me for some reason

>>34829882
I dont get why the marines dont still use the Bronco when it is basically the turboprop equivalent of the cobra, even the same gun.

File: rattler_iso2.jpg (118KB, 1024x484px) Image search: [Google]

118KB, 1024x484px

What we really need for the CAS role...

>>34825742
>AT-6 is American
It's essentially a Pilatus PC-9 with an AC unit. I think the Toucan is based on a Pilatus jet as well.

>>34826280
And the F-15C was also the best air superiority fighter in the world in its time

>>34829546
>Modern Germans do it too

Oh god
>mom has audi
>oil pan cracks
>oil pan costs $100 or something
>but the entire engine has to be removed for the pan to be swapped
>$1k to fix a $100 part

But yeah, lots of things were way stronger than need be just because they werent sure of the limits and erred on the safe side of things. This is why most ww2 american aircraft are porkers compared to other countries, they went with a 9g load limit vs the 7.5g of other nations. The zero was walso really light in part because they designed it with a safety factor of 1.5, whereas 2 was normal for that time.

File: BellX-22A-1.jpg (111KB, 980x512px) Image search: [Google]

111KB, 980x512px

>>34830307
>never ever

WE WERE SO CLOSE

>>34826291
Almost definitely two officers. One pilot and one WSO, like the Strike Eagle and Super Hornet

>>34830267
Its a BR plane

>>34829324

So if that whas all command had, and it was safe to land there, you still dont think it would ever happen?

>>34830340
Most Super Hornets flies with only one. Only the F/A-18F can take two.

File: Viet-Cong-Lady-Fighter.jpg (33KB, 400x546px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 400x546px

>>34829948
Ok, but helis can be based much closer to the point of conflict, and during Afghanistan and Vietnam, and even the Soviet Afghanistan, despite the lower payload they were way more lethal than fixed wing jets.
I can see the need for a really rapid response for an urgent call for air support, mostly done by F-16s and F18s in Astan. But lower speed attack jets like Harriers and A-10s got the worst of both worlds.
I'm basing this interpretation off of the memoirs of a British JTAC and a British apache pilot in Astan. They both seemed to have similar ideas from their experiences. Also an examination of the Soviet experience in Afghanistan puts a premium on the Hinds as being the one of the most effective assets they had and Su-25s underperforming.
Likewise I've read a book by an American Vietnam vet who gives accounts of his experiences with air support, he found the skyraider too lightly armed to be very useful but sings the praises of gunships. Though I don't recall much about helos.

File: 6087309312_0c4ab6b513_b.jpg (64KB, 970x647px) Image search: [Google]

64KB, 970x647px

>>34829017
explain this?

>>34830325
>ww2 american aircraft are porkers compared to other countries,
Mostly, compared to the European designs (FW190, Bf109, Spit, Yaks, Lavs, MiGs and so on), the US designs had much greater range and higher operating altitude, due to bomber escort being a prime mission.
Compared to the Jap designs, the US planes had armor and self-sealing fuel tanks, which increased weight.
The US designs weren't designed to a higher load factor during the war until the F8F IIRC, as pilot load tolerance wasn't up to it until the G suits came around.

>>34823443
>>34823424
>>34823414
This one looks cool, especially from the front on, hope it wins

>>34830308

No, the Super Toucan is based on the 312 Toucan.

>>34820346
This whole project sounds like something Michael Sparks would have proposed.

File: OV-10D Bronco.png (1MB, 1440x900px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1440x900px

>>34821305

Bring back an updated modernized Bronco

>>34830636
GAVINS

GAVINS

GAVIIIIIIIIIIIINS

>>34830644

Make it remote control. Killing insurgents and NORKS from a cozy air conditioned trailer in Las Vegas sounds pretty good.

>>34830636
Threadly reminder that Sparky is a furfag.

File: paris_air_show_hurkus-c.jpg (57KB, 614x461px) Image search: [Google]

57KB, 614x461px

>>34830424
Makeshift airfield capability is another reason for these, it doesn't give helos much of an advantage. Plus turboprop have higher max altitude, rate of climb and loiter time.

The current battlefields have become saturated with MANPADS since mid-Syrian war, unlike Astan and 'nam ever were. You need something with heavier armor and speed/alt./climb to be able to outrun them. Remember Cobra KET? The roaches are building their own COIN turboprop as well. Attack helos are looking like they'll be switched to anti-armor ops instead on the modern battlefield until ECW tech catches up, very similar to the current problem with MBTs in asymmetric warfare.

>>34828366
I know I'm late to the party, but you really are an idiot. Your anology actually made no sense, as the fat girl never hits the carnie and the troops aren't holding up any ride.

Your continous insentence on how smart you ar, and how dumb they are (for not getting your retarded analogy) just goes to show that you lack both the maturity and rationality to speak here with the adults.

You're not the only idiot autist on this board.

>>34820346

>
>Also why put guns in a farm plane?
Why not?

File: corsair.jpg (71KB, 1278x971px) Image search: [Google]

71KB, 1278x971px

>dfw we wont just fuck gooks up with corsairs again

>>34830552
Anything but the Super Taco

>>34830550
>The US designs weren't designed to a higher load factor during the war until the F8F IIRC, as pilot load tolerance wasn't up to it until the G suits came around.

They absolutely were, 9.5 was the standard dictated by the AAF. This is why there was the 'lightweight' mustangs and P-47j - they were redesigned to follow the 'european' load factor standard of 7.5.

File: 1499972009070.gif (490KB, 167x250px) Image search: [Google]

490KB, 167x250px

>>34830691
Ok thanks anon, I hadn't considered the new influx of manpads.
I have to say I'm still not sold on how survivable these dinky turboprops are going to be, they can't pull the same evasive manouvres as fast jets, are they built like tanks?
Even still, one engine.
I'm coming around to the concept. But I guess we'll have to see.

>>34830883
>Brittish fighters were lighter than U.S. fighters. Schmued ask for detailed weight statements from Supermarine on the Spitfire. Schmued wanted to know why the Spitfires were so much lighter than the P-51. Supermairne did not have such data on the Spitfire, so they started weighing all the parts they could get a hold of and made a report for Schmued. The Brittish had design standards that were not at strict in some areas of design as the U.S. Landing gear, angle of attack and side engine design loads were higher in the U.S.
>When Schmued returned, they began a new design of the P-51 Mustang that used Brittish design loads. They shaved weight on any part that could yield. They were able to reduce the empty weight of the P-51 by 600 pounds. This would translate into more performance.

http://www.mustangsmustangs.net/p-51/variants/p51h

Why do the monkeys want the US to fly their shit plane anyway, other countries are already flying them including the Afghan Security Forces that are getting their Super Tacos from the US

>>34828711
I for one would welcome a turboprop and titanium Mosquito.

When will USAF be deciding the winner?

If the Tucano wins, I think they'll try to buy the license and produce it in the US, or make their own, upgraded version, like with the Harrier.

File: 1200px-Heinkel,_He_162,_Spatz_Volksjager_(7585406720)[1].jpg (123KB, 1200x896px) Image search: [Google]

123KB, 1200x896px

>>34830307

>>34831436

They already do. Sierra Nevada builds some for their FMS program contract.

>>34830659

FLYING

GAVINNNNNNNNNNNNNNNSSSSSSS

File: gavins-big.jpg (212KB, 1000x863px) Image search: [Google]

212KB, 1000x863px

DID SOMEBODY SAY GAVINS

>>34823327
This guy is on the right track, but quits too early. The Air Force says it wants a new plane. What they mean is they never want to do ground attack/close air support. They will approve one of these, doesn't matter which one b/c zero sorties, and then take funding from A-10 to buy it. When Congress asks why the A-10's are going to the wood chipper, AF says the planes are old and there's no one making parts. Congress says we gave you money specifically for A-10 parts, you bought parts for A10 last year. AF we cancelled the contracts and spent the money on this new plane that does the same thing, but better. In a few years, no A-10's flying and new & better is unnecessary & cancelled. AF never has to fly below 20k cept to land, final destination.

>>34831676
thiss nigga woke

>>34826291
Pretty much guaranteed to be two officers. Enlisted are only really aircrew on heavies. These would probably be crewed the same as Strike Eagles and Growlers.

>>34831676
>he chose the redpill

File: gihren-zabi-mobile-suit-gundam-6.48.jpg (22KB, 210x240px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 210x240px

>>34831676
>What they mean is they never want to do ground attack/close air support.
And why should they have to risk their lives for "people" whose souls are weighed down by gravity?

>>34832244
Ghiren/10

Real talk, I wouldn't make Dianne Feinstein fly a Dopp, nobody deserves that.

>>34832244
>gravity

Fuck off Pucci

File: IMG_0834.jpg (241KB, 1250x800px) Image search: [Google]

241KB, 1250x800px

Wolverine please, it already has industry and aircraft in use (trainer version) on its side.

File: FA-50.jpg (1MB, 1920x1280px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1920x1280px

Why not the FA-50 or M346?

File: 604c977af795679b1d1f7106d6ebce2c.jpg (127KB, 1092x682px) Image search: [Google]

127KB, 1092x682px

little bird wins

>>34824197

You underestimate the ego of the USAF

>>34830889
Useless infographic because it literally compares the A-29 to the base trainer model of the T-6

>>34821371
>>34826547

As much as I love the irony of converting plowshares back to swords, isn't lack of cockpit visibility an issue for COIN? Sensors can probably get around it some but a clear bubble canopy helps a lot.

>>34833368
Struts on the canopy doesn't impact visibility that badly. You can just move your head around. A bubbe canopy is nice to have of course, but it isn't vital. The sheerness of the the nose looks great though. Forward visibility would be amazing.

>>34828590
No, but both the Air Tractor family of aircraft and the Dromaeder are based on the Thrush Commander.

>>34833368
Visibility makes me wonder why nobody has put forward a design with wings mounted on the top instead of the bottom.

File: Idex2017.jpg (291KB, 1280x960px) Image search: [Google]

291KB, 1280x960px

Seems popular..

>>34834474
The OV-10 has a high wing which is also behind the cockpit. It's also had an ejection seat since the late sixties. Does anybody know why Boeing didn't put the modernized ones forward besides they hate money?

>>34833355

Yeah, the AT-6 is a Trainer with guns while the A29 is purpose built for COIN.

>>34833025
I like the FA-50... Can be used as a trainer too.

>>34829165
Bronco is safer than an attack helo with better high altitude performance and longer loiter time, but services only want jets. The story of the Bronco getting built despite Navy trying to sink the program by overloading it (so they thought) with radios is hilarious because it backfired.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rey-PV2t6_Y

I worked USAF Broncos at Sembach AB and they are a breeze to maintain. They come apart like the plastic model kit making cannibalisation easy. Our Phase Dock guys even swapped fuselages with little fuss.

>>34829516
>Meanwhile AH64s are much better than even dedicated ground attack aircraft like the A-10 when once they're on station, because they can more easily observe the effects of their fires and don't need to keep coming around.

Choppers lack range and loiter time. They are very vulnerable to ground fire from small arms if used over towns and cities. Choppers are more handicapped by altitude. Fixed wing aircraft have ejection seats.

>>34836113
Why not compare the model that's actually being evaluated, the AT-6B?

>>34830745
Skyraider was better, and they could carry a heavier bomb load.

File: Calfire OV-10.jpg (47KB, 900x352px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 900x352px

>>34836200
Broncos are legit

>>34830636
He's autistic but he's often historically correct. Light FAC/attack aircraft were very successful in Viet Nam. The US operating costs of using fighters and helos for missions a bugsmasher can do cheaper is a big deal. There is a long history of other COIN aircraft operations. The French did very well in Algeria using fixed wing prop jobs.

The average grunt today has worse direct air support than during Viet Nam because we have so very few airframes. If we still had loitering fixed wing aircraft Marcus Luttrell's team would still be alive. Broncos or even O-2 Skymasters could have flown overhead rotation for 24/7 cover and given the Taliban a nice FFAR bath. Skyraiders could have wasted the Taliban with a variety of ordnance.

http://bayourenaissanceman.blogspot.com/2011/03/story-behind-toilet-bomb.html

>>34836321

Still a trainer modified for CAS. The air-frame isn't used for what is originally made for.

>>34836994
>being cheap to fly and use light weaponry isn't what the Tucano or AT-6 were designed for

>>34828980
Now that you mention it, is this London ? That would be somewhat unrealistic, indeed.

File: Philippines_Escaping_Marawi_59225-3d894.jpg (41KB, 960x634px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 960x634px

>>34829110
One the Flips are finished playing with you, senpai.

My civilian's opinion is, Western armies should have went for low-maintenance aircrafts a long time ago already. Who thought it would be a good idea to use the very best, most expensive jets to go strafe skirmishers in some remote mountains ? Certainly not the taxpayers...
In today's wars, operational range is more important than speed, hence why I think turboprop would be far more efficient than jet.

File: Mig-23-low-pass.jpg (38KB, 782x538px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 782x538px

>>34837384
Props get you loiter time.
High loiter time sucks when you need fast air yesterday.

>>34825448
This

Where is the Mega Broncos!

File: Stealth.jpg (61KB, 486x635px) Image search: [Google]

61KB, 486x635px

>>34837384
In production.

>>34820346
New head of acquisitions is a Textron exec, so...

>>34828770
Remake the designs with modern technology.
Duralum, swap out with titanium alloys
Rivets, nope, it's sintering (3D welding) time.
Mechanical computers for your gun sight, naw man we have modern electronics and HMD for that.
Carburetors and 1hp/ci (or 1hp/lb), negative, time for some precise fuel injection and multi-port variable timing valves and engine bodies 1/3 the weight.
Improve the aerodynamics without changing the looks.

Make the F-2051, F-2047, A-2020, IL-2002M3, FW-2190, Ta-2152, etc.

>>34837321
Yes (>>34828940) is London, that's the Thames river and the Parliament Building/Big Ben.

>>34828770

Only for a military context: Tons of light aircraft are still made exactly like they were back in the 30s/40s because its a known technology that is able to be done in a small workshop without needing the extensive amount of equipment and facilities to do proper epoxy-bonded structures that are light and able to be highly stressed.

Rivets are pretty-much just a very shitty mechanical glue, but they do work and have known properties so they remain in use.

>>34836403
This might sound like a really crackpot idea, but what about meeting the need for immediate ground support via a "flying arsenal" idea - some sort of long endurance bomber loitering really high with a load of huge JDAMs just dropped on request?

File: 170808-F-FF346-1024.jpg (2MB, 2479x1983px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2479x1983px

>>34837802
hello

File: RAF_Short_S-312_Tucano_T1_Lofting-2.jpg (487KB, 1280x899px) Image search: [Google]

487KB, 1280x899px

>>34825248

Imbecile.

>>34825573
You know the T-6 Is a non-American plane right? It's a derivative of the Pilatus PC-9.

File: C-130-Elephant-Walk1.jpg (1MB, 2701x1489px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2701x1489px

>>34829327

>Which commits you to a stupid long logistics tail but hey, air force officers amirite?


There's a rumour going around that there's this secret branch of the Air Force that has the ability to move anything, anywhere in ridiculous quantity in a very short period of time. The rumours say it's called Air Mobility Command...

>>34836389
I think Boeing opted out of the experiment.

>>34830302
Because cobras can take off and land anywhere and take up less space.

>>34838057
Now we need some one to edit footage of this, with the marching song of the elephants from the first jungle book.

>>34838130
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3F7C48N7vnw

>>34823414
looks a bit sad, like a cripple with short and weak legs.

>>34829242
>Now Argentina's front line fighter due to all jets being grounded
considering that it scored their only air to air kill at falklands...

>>34830302
>>34838111

Also, the AH-1Z and UH-1Y share over 80% commonality of parts. This is significant for logistics when you are operating off amphibious warships and out of FOBs.

>>34833025
Too fast...the FA-50, that is. M346? Not sure...

>>34833368
>plowshares to swords
> nuclear rogue states
The future is /k/

>>34828590
Now THAT is an ugly aircraft.

I love it.

>>34830961
They actually just recently found the plans for the Mosquito right before an office was going to dump them all in the skip.

>>34831134
Has Lockheed put in a model?

>>34828770
iirc i have read they made spitfires so those would serve several years and then were supposed to be replaced so the restored spitfires need a lot of hard work maintenance as the result; i think most of the ww2 planes weren't supposed to serve for a long

>>34838738
Neither Lockheed or Boeing appeared for the demonstration, just the scorpion, best taco, and texas' cropduster.

>>34826547
>calling a shitty little crop duster "archangel"

fuck's sake that name is reserved for some kind of skunkworks hypersonic stealth plane

>>34833025

Way too expensive, maintenance intensive, too heavy on logistics, limited ability for forward deployment and too short loiter time.

Lead in trainer is cheap substitute for fighter with somewhat similar performance in almost everything, usually parts where it doesn't match in performance are speed, range and payload. Speed is still good enough for fighter like air combat training experience. Payload is good enough for using it as light attack aircraft.

Stupidity of /k/ when it comes to COIN aircraft never ceases to amaze me, especially on summer.

File: Archangel1.jpg (63KB, 792x594px) Image search: [Google]

63KB, 792x594px

>>34838764
>fuck's sake that name is reserved for some kind of skunkworks hypersonic stealth plane

They already used it in 50's on boderline hypersonic plane. Program was renamed Oxcart after while, but initial letter remained in model number, A-12. Once USAF got two seat version of Oxcart, they relabeled it as Blackbird.

>>34837384
Well you got these expensive jets designed for peer vs peer conflict just sitting around, and the taxpayers aren't getting their money's worth if they're not flying. So might as well use them to drop bombs on some guys in the remote mountains.

>>34836994
Both the A-37 and F-5 were developed from trainers (T-37 and T-38) and were very successful weapon platforms

>>34836403
AeroGavins

http://www.combatreform.org/tanksthatfly.htm

>>34823185
>that toilet
why?

>>34838738
Lockheed is a subcontractor for the AT-6

>>34839772
Well then the AT-6 will win.

>>34839441
Why not search for skyraider toilet?

>>34830401
You've asked that question 3 times now

I don't think the USAF will buy a single engine low-slow attack aircraft. I suspect they won't make a selection (not in this decade), but if they do it will be the scorpion just for the redundancy of two engines. Afghani lives may be worthless enough to the US that they'll throw them in a cheaply modified aerial applicator and call it a day, but American lives are not. Modern fighters can get away with single engines because they fly fast at 30k ft and anybody that can shoot them down from there will probably be a state actor that won't behead the pilot once captured post-bailout (or the pilot will be able to get far enough away to have a chance at evasion thanks to speed and altitude); a subsonic COIN attacker has no such luxury by definition and the USAF won't accept the risk of a single "golden BB" making the aircraft unrecoverable by destroying its non-redundant propulsion system, effectively sentencing the pilot to death by terries when his chute lands half a mile away from the shooter.

>>34828395
If you make an analogy and nobody gets it, it isn't their fault.

>>34823674
>Also why put guns in a farm plane?

You are in the wrong board.

File: ezt63zn6mf0x4fqliuly[1].jpg (46KB, 800x451px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 800x451px

>>34840190
Damn shame there's no 2 engine air frames suitable for COIN.

>>34840280
I don't know if you're being serious or making a sarcastic OV-10 comment, but the OV-10 will not happen. This competition is for a new production attacker, not a series of attackers built from parts in the boneyard and frames salvaged from other services/countries that took them all when the USAF gave them away. Boeing clearly isn't interested in trying to "restart" production of a plane that ended production under a different company half a century ago, they didn't even participate. The best bet for a twin-engine turboprop is for no selection to be made this time around (pretty likely) and then for a US firm to secure the license to a different country's airframe and present it at the next competition. Beech has a history of doing just that, but they're already in with the (Pilatus) AT-6 and they're not going to compete against themselves.

>>34829017
You are retarded?

Super Tucano is used by a dozen of countries.

>>34838145
>the elephant with some leaves on on his tusk and bloodshot eyes

>>34829310
If the only thing available option can carry a single casualty crammed into a seat to the detriment of the aircraft then no, I really don't think anyone would consider that a worthwhile use of resources

>>34821371
"goddammit, who let Boris take the Shturmovik out, again? Now he's trying to sell it to the American imperialist dogs & looks like they just might fall for it!"

>>34829310
Any casualty that can be safely evacuated in the back seat of a light attack aircraft (i.e. ambulatory, without an attendant, without an IV, coherent enough to not touch anything important) can be safely evacuated next week when the supply helicopter comes by. Your suggestion is literally retarded.

>>34840660
Make casualty pods to sling on a hardpoint.

File: Xv-15_inflight[1].jpg (776KB, 3000x2287px) Image search: [Google]

776KB, 3000x2287px

>>34840785
If you're going for a convenient CASEVAC craft why not just go full meme?

>>34840190
Anon we do this with helicopters all the time though, copter pilots can get shot down just as easily as this attack plane can, if not even easier.

>>34828366
I've read a lot of dumb shit on this board over the years, this is certainly up there with the best/worst examples

>>34841179
US attack helicopters have two engines, except the little bird but it's arguable whether or not the little bird is a proper attack helicopter. I'm guessing they accept the risk of the single-engine little bird because 1) it's the Army, 2) it seats several people with guns rather than just 1x or 2x aircrew, increasing the chances of surviving on the ground if the aircraft is forced down, and 3) the Army tends to operate aircraft near the Army which means there's usually a capable ground party nearby to task with recovery.

>>34840785
You can't leave high risk casualties unattended or they die (that's what makes them high risk). This is why militaries use aircraft with cargo space for casualty movement. Casualties that could be left unattended in a hardpoint litter adapter don't need an immediate airmove to survive, and thus can wait for realistic transportation to higher medical care.

>>34839896
Then we can all agree its for the better as long as the BR Taco doesn't win.

>>34841529

You've been butthurt about this plane the whole thread.

Where did the Embraer technician touched you?

>>34841857
Flying the Monkey Taco is beneath American pilots

>>34842128
Don't you want an air squadron with sugar skull pinups and the motto "Taco Flavored Kisses"

Why haven't they thought of just making a variant of the F-35 that comes with a parachute so it can have the required loiter time?

File: 1474829027721.jpg (42KB, 600x600px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 600x600px

>>34823443
What a cute pudgy belly

File: f-15sa_4.jpg (284KB, 1000x591px) Image search: [Google]

284KB, 1000x591px

>>34829017
But the USAF doesn't even fly top of the line F-16s or F-15s.

File: SUper Tucano HUD.jpg (70KB, 600x399px) Image search: [Google]

70KB, 600x399px

Must be fun flying those.

File: Super Tucano - Bronco.jpg (34KB, 400x300px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 400x300px

>>34840190
>Afghani lives may be worthless enough to the US that they'll throw them in a cheaply modified aerial applicator and call it a day, but American lives are not

This debacle of USAF vs cheap off the shelf COIN aircraft began over decade ago or alternatively with Key West agreement when only way USAF allowed Army to have organic helicopters was army getting rid of all fixed wing aviation with exception of few very light cargo aircraft.

SOCOM wanted light COIN aircraft, off the shelf and fast for their own nefarious purposes. They proposed Super Tucano, couple dozen of those or maybe bit more. One proposal they got from US industry was building bunch of new OV-10 Broncos with modern avionics and weapons.

Both of those planes are something USAF doesn't want, as their mission isn't supporting Warfighter™ on the ground. Their mission is to spend money on shiny high tech things and as side benefit generate high paying consultant jobs for recently retired USAF staff officers in military industry.

>>34841348
>US attack helicopters have two engines, except the little bird but it's arguable whether or not the little bird is a proper attack helicopter. I'm guessing they accept the risk of the single-engine little bird because 1) it's the Army

Bingo, reason for Little Bird is that it is suitable aircraft for SOCOM. Small logistical footprint, can land in front of average suburb garage and it is what one part of Army wants. Best of all is the fact that they are allowed to have 'em with Key West agreement.

>3) the Army tends to operate aircraft near the Army which means there's usually a capable ground party nearby to task with recovery.

Little Bird quite often operates in places where rest of the army isn't as it is quite exclusively used for special operations.

As final note. Very existence of AT-6 is kinda abhorrent. It took about decade turn T-6 into COIN plane. SOCOM wanted their planes bit over decade ago. If Tucano wins OA-X, it will be kinda ironic.

Can anyone bring me up to speed with this "new" light attack aircrafts? Shouldn't helicopters render this hardware obselete?

Are this being developed for the US and other 1st world armed forced or are they for 3rd world clients?

>>34842626
It's mainly as an in between jets and helicopters with the addition of supposedly being cheap and easy to maintain.

>>34842689
Makes sense i suppose.
If they are able to be equipped with up to date weapon systems like hellfire missiles, then they would be really cost effective.

And it would preferable to send this cheap airframes in insurgent areas rather that the expensive high end ones. I suppose my country would be a future buyer.

>>34842734
>>34842689
Longer loiter times

I think its funny the USAF hates attack type planes, they hate the A-10 and will hate anything selected from these trials. So they hate low and slow?

>>34842772
They hate cheap things that are cost effective. Far smaller gibs.
>what do you mean the missles that we requisitioned can't be nickle plated?

>>34842772
The niche that COIN seems to serve best in, is in areas where AA is minimal, in any major conflict they'd either be sitting ducks or getting mothballed, so I guess I can see why they're not big on the idea when they have so many options that can as far as a half or a quarter of the globe, drop ordnance and come back again. Maybe they're afraid of being the Marine Corps to the Army's Navy?

File: 7b030de1904c0544969aa8339140a4dd.jpg (671KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

671KB, 1024x768px

>>34842626
>Can anyone bring me up to speed with this "new" light attack aircrafts? Shouldn't helicopters render this hardware obselete?

No. Helicopters are slower than fixed wing aircraft and carry worse payload with twice the engine power and logistics requirement. Cheap to operate and easy to maintain aircraft that can be used from more shitty conditions than fighters with smaller logistical footprint. Closest competitor would be drones, but those lack man in the loop at where stuff happens and eyeball mk1 to give situational awareness.

Fighters, COIN aircraft, helicopters and drones aren't supposed to be competitors, but complementing systems.

>Are this being developed for the US and other 1st world armed forced or are they for 3rd world clients?

Planes that are good enough for bombing illiterate goat herders with AK's on mountains or redguards in some African shithole. For 3rd world air forces those make one of their primary missions and aircraft. For 1st world air forces it is mostly about niche mission, mostly supporting special forces that are assisting local 3rd world partner.

>>34842734

>If they are able to be equipped with up to date weapon systems like hellfire missiles, then they would be really cost effective

Yes. Sending a strategic bomber or fighter requiring tanker support to drop 250lb small diameter bomb or two isn't really cost effective.

>And it would preferable to send this cheap airframes in insurgent areas rather that the expensive high end ones.

Difference that is even bigger than price of aircraft is how much operating those costs per hour, especially on other side of the world.

File: Piper PA-48 Enforcer.jpg (47KB, 800x363px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 800x363px

>>34842772

They hate buying planes that doesn't lead to nice post retirement career offers for staff officers as consultants in industry. They dong give a fuck what army, marines or whoever is on the ground.

>what do you mean the missles that we requisitioned can't be nickle plated?

While missiles and precision guided bombs are expensive, those are cheap practice compared to iron bombs due high hit probability single plane can hit many targets on same sortie.

>>34842910
>The niche that COIN seems to serve best in, is in areas where AA is minimal, in any major conflict they'd either be sitting ducks or getting mothballed,

If there is major conflict those can be used as trainers back home. Wasting expensive and limited flight hours of expensive fighter aircraft to fight people with no air defense more serious than 12.7mm MG, 23mm AA-gun or some MANPAD with no support from sensor network is kinda stupid as well.

Oops, quoted wrong post, >>34842965 was meant for >>34842796

>>34842796
>>34842965
The ones who want these cheaper, cost effective light attack aircraft probably aren't going to be the ones flying them

>>34843014
I guess who'd want to say that they spent their entire service time flying only prop-planes?

>>34843062
or you know get shot down and die because insurgents had some form of AA that can down those low and slow light attack planes

>>34843014
>The ones who want these cheaper, cost effective light attack aircraft probably aren't going to be the ones flying them

People who want them mostly are special forces and more conventional expeditionary forces send to fight people with no air defense in 3rd world countries as far as 1st world armies are concerned. They are people that could benefit having such aircraft to support them, they often rely on air support.

Also being able to supply such aircraft for 3rd world allies with training support could be nice. If such plane doesn't exist in inventory, supplying 'em to 3rd world ally and setting them up operate those with reasonable proficiency will take much longer. Most civil wars can be kept much shorter and less bloody if reaction comes within months instead of decade.

>>34843062
Who'd want to say they spent the rest of their life flying a shitty single-engine trainer at low speed and altitude directly at an enemy position? After Vietnam the Air Force has put a huge emphasis on avoiding "no return" (high attrition) missions, and COIN in a cheap low-performance airplane will become just that.

>>34843084
Those 3rd world countries don't have advance AA systems, 20/40mm cannons on a Toyota will work just fine on a low, prop driven plane

>>34843154
Probably the most common conventional AA gun in the world is the ZU-23, which can """technically""" engage an aircraft at around 2000 meters. A CAS turboprop would probably be sitting comfy at 4-6k and dropping precision ordnance 99% of the time.

>>34843119
Just like blackhawk and huey pilots?

>>34843154

20mm or 40mm cannon on hilux isn't really effective without support from radars and proper communications network. Those are something 3rd world insurgents don't usually have access to.

>>34843190
Forgive me for the dumb question, but how easy is it to detect radars?

>>34843184
>Army pilots
Who cares?

>>34843278
>being a pussy

Is this why sailors/marines make for better fighter pilots?

>>34843303
They don't though

>>34843184
They fly in formation so the other aircraft can self-SAR. Fixed wing can't do that.

>>34843250

That is extremely complicated question if we go into depth, but radar warning receivers are a thing in combat aircraft and on the flip side coin low probability of intercept radars exist. Generally radar transmissions can be detected at much longer distance than those radars can get useful return from target. Generally you need know what at what frequencies those enemy radars use to detect 'em. One way to avoid detection radar users can turn their radar off and if they have network of radars and other sensors, they can cycle use of radars and other sensors to keep continuous coverage over area. Move radars that aren't currently used to new positions when other radar does its job on its turn.

>>34843278
t. chair force.

...and the reason why fixed wing close air support should be handed to the army, maybe even leave only strategic bombers, ICBM's and support units those require to chair force.

>>34843319

Most of the time these COIN aircraft would be used for CAS on own special forces, there would be boots on the ground most of the time.

File: 6b36d7e3ad488068c2eda8944a67b1a5.jpg (80KB, 750x417px) Image search: [Google]

80KB, 750x417px

The fact that the Bronco isnt even considered for reactivation is disgusting. A proven, tested, airframe designed to do the job, shown to do the job, with an existing training program designed and ready should of been top priority.
Super Huecano is cool and all, dont get me wrong, but how do you not go with a 20mm turret design?

>>34843501
Super Huecano was available off the shelf when SOCOM originally wanted their COIN plane that USAF has to operate thanks to Key West agreement. Boeing proposed modernized OV-10X as alternative. Some new composite parts and modern avionics to support precision guided bombs in all flavors, Hellfires and precision guided 70mm rockets. Problem for that to happen was the fact that SOCOM wanted it now and USAF didn't want it ever to happen.

>>34843576
For the sake of dragging feet that makes the bronco the preferred for the airforce.

>>34843358
Fixed wing aircraft have a habit of crashing where sending troops in for a CASEVAC is not viable.

>>34843358
I honestly don't know who would be better at handling the radar question(army or air force), or making sure they don't get deployed into an A.O. where they would get swatted out of the sky.

>>34843710
>For the sake of dragging feet that makes the bronco the preferred for the airforce.

Super Tucano came out of the box with said modern parts. That was very much the point why SOCOM proposed buying some. It had almost all features they wanted, rest of features could have been added along the way. It could have been available on fast schedule. Bronco would have had some redundancy with two engines, but setting up production line and some re-design would have taken time, still it probably would have made it Afghanistan faster than AT-6.

>>34844077
>I honestly don't know who would be better at handling the radar question(army or air force), or making sure they don't get deployed into an A.O. where they would get swatted out of the sky.

It is nearly impossible for insurgents to have proper air defense network. For the time enemy has such thing... there is the stuff air force loves, sophisticated fighters, bombers and drones. The very idea with cheap COIN aircraft is to deploy those once threat environment becomes something those can deal with. First first few months of stomping a 3rd world nation into ground and changing regime is time for using fighters. Once regime is changed and there isn't any air defense, just insurgency messing with shit, that is the COunter INsurgency planes are bought into theater. The next few years or decades. Sophisticated fighters and bombers are just too expensive and too heavy on logistics in that kind of war.

The thing with A-10 as COIN aircraft isn't that A-10 is the best suited plane for the role, but it is the best suited plane for that role in USAF inventory because USAF refuses to buy purpose built COIN aircraft. They will however use the fact that A-10 isn't perfect COIN aircraft as an excuse to retire and replace it with F-35, because it suits their agenda. Even if F-35 is even worse in COIN operations.

File: OK BRs, easy on the ethanol-distilled moonshine.png (80KB, 620x787px) Image search: [Google]

80KB, 620x787px

>>34820346
>>34829110
>>34829165
>>34830644
>>34836389
>>34837360
>>34840280
>>34842493
>>34842911

I'm just flabbergasted why the OV-10 really isn't in consideration seeing the "austere" operating environment requirements and a "combat proven design" are key perquisites for the air-frame. Even worse IS the fact that there are already upgraded OV-10's in inventory and have performed phenomenally in their time in Iraq.

Honestly wish Boeing would come out with a modernized frame based on the OV-10 with even stronger powerplants, a larger wingspan and more hardpoints, slapping on a 30mm Apache turret for shits and giggles on the bottom with about 1000 rounds.

At this point I'm rooting for the damn AT-802L to win this bitch to further spite all the AF for their hubris in shit like this.

>>34844946
the OV-10 isn't in consideration yet because Boeing hasn't produced a modernized variant to submit to the competition yet

>>34844946
>At this point I'm rooting for the damn AT-802L to win this bitch to further spite all the AF for their hubris in shit like this.

I'm rooting for Super Tucano purely for all the irony with USAF vs COIN aircraft. AT-802 is also good enough for the job. Textron Scorpion is also interesting take on the problem.

>>34845005
>the OV-10 isn't in consideration yet because Boeing hasn't produced a modernized variant to submit to the competition yet

That is basically because they gave up once they realized USAF organizational resistance to idea to COIN aircraft. If you google OV-10X you will end up with bunch of early 2000's low resolution shitty CGI images.

>>34845112
>>34845005

Ahhh, it's not like they're hurting on contracts anyways seeing how much of their frames are in logistics and electronic warfare roles. Here's to hoping they blindside the competition, however improbable that is.

>>34845170
Boeing is getting tanker contract... that they lost originally due to inferior product, but that is another matter.