Could we bring the A-1 back for COIN?

File: 1499874684864.jpg (258KB, 750x580px) Image search: [Google]

258KB, 750x580px

>>35020410
>Big
>Radial
>Engines

>>35020410
its much easier to shoot it down
I dont know, it would be cool to have the rotorded planes back in air again, doing small missions, slow and steady wins the race, jeb, no it doesnt, JEB, they are low on range, JEB, very low energy. JEB
Depends on what you mean by modernize it, rotorded planes were 'modernized' when jet engines were made.
Interesting subject nonetheless

>>35020410
BRING BACK THE P-51!!!!

>>35020410
In a word; NO! there are far better airframes in service. It's too big, too slow, takes-up too much room on the flight deck!

>>35020539
I meant modernize it as in give it computer systems to be able to operate on the modern battlefield, similar to the A-10C.

File: 97c06caa322561ebaf6c38831e06fd2a.jpg (31KB, 554x250px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 554x250px

As-is, no. Avgas left the military's logistics chain when it went all-turbine somewhere in the 80s, and reintroducing it would be an enormous pain in the ass. A turbine version of the Sandy *was* proposed in the early 70s, but the USAF decided to go with the A-10 concept instead. And frankly, having both a new A-1 and the A-10 would be unnecessary - two aircraft in the exact same space.

The new COIN aircraft competition exists not so much to give us a replacement for the A-1, but a replacement for the T-28Ds that were used in Laos and Cambodia during the war in Southeast Asia. These were considerably lighter, easier to fly, and easier to maintain than the Skyraiders; they were a supplement rather than a replacement. Same with the new aircraft and its relationship to the A-10.

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

25KB, 560x374px

>>35020571
They thought of that already.

no the super tweet is better unless your trying to use it as a bomber

>>35020410

>proven design
So is a longsword, doesnt mean jack shit
>US design
Doesnt mean anything at all
>tough as nails
Not really
>carries a lot of ordinance
Not by modern standards given its size
>carrier capable
Most propplanes can take off from a 300 m carrier.

>>35020587
>able to operate on the modern battlefield
>A-10C

Pick one and only one.

Unless by "modern battlefield" you mean uncontested airspace
dropping ordinance on illiterate dunecoons.

Its good at what does, I'll give it that. But it would be toast in a truly modern conflict.

>>35021502
>But it would be toast in a truly modern conflict.
Bullshit, considering every "truly modern conflict" the US has fought since 1945 really *has* mostly involved dropping ordinance on peasants with rifles in uncontested airspace.

Nukes made major-power conflicts obsolete, and the only reason we haven't admitted it yet is because the Military-Industrial Complex pays our politicians and generals handsomely to *not* admit it. The future of war is in semi-literate peasants with rusty AKs.

>>35021746
>But it would be toast in a truly modern conflict.

Only since the 2nd Gulf War. Iraq had the 5th largest military in the world at the onset of that war. Both times when we surgically dismantled their airspace defenses and made our initial pushes (aka the part when it was still a "war") it sure as shit wasn't with A-10s. They didnt come into play long after we found and killed Saddam and the resistance was a bunch of random jihadis.

>The future of war is in semi-literate peasants with rusty AKs

Ironically this will still be the case even if the Norks decide to nut up with the current posturing.
I personally cannot wait for more "valley of death" photos like what came out of Kuwait.

End of the day "modern battlefield" doesnt mean bombing goatfuckers. Major-powers will just keep doing what theyve been doing for the last 60 years and using conflicts in proxy-states to achieve goals, a-la Korea/Vietnam/(80s)Afghanistan. All of which were good examples of "modern battlefields" given their respective time periods. Vietnam wasnt just bombing and burning out riceniggers, it was a proxywar against fully supplied and current soviet hardware, same for Korea, and (roles reversed, Afghanistan).

>>35021502
You don't understand what kind of conflicts a COIN aircraft would be used in.

>>35022286
>Iraq had the 5th largest military in the world at the onset of that war.
And how long did it last, exactly?
>Both times when we surgically dismantled their airspace defenses and made our initial pushes (aka the part when it was still a "war") it sure as shit wasn't with A-10s.
"I don't understand the concept of combined-arms operations": The Post

>>35020410
id rather see the a10 on a coin, maybe put it on a dime, 10 cents for the a 10

>>35022304
>implying the A-10 was designed as a COIN aircraft

Super Tucanos and a myriad of other platforms and drones do that job for a fraction of the cost. The A10's design philosophy is so hopelessly outdated itts not even funny.

The Fulda gap and T55's are about 50 years too late m8.

>>35022425
>"I don't understand the concept of combined-arms operations"

Oh I understand them fine. A-10s were at no point part of the combined-arms plan for both of the iraq wars until the airspace was completely controlled. At that point you may as well be flying a cessna and pitch hand grenades out the window as a WWI LARP.

There's no shortage of gun platforms that can operate in uncontested airspace (helis shine here especially), they may not have the 30mm BRRRT, but thats really not a big deal vs infantry. As for Missile/GBU-trucks, there's no shortage of platforms that can do that job equally well, and have a faster ToT, like the F15/16 (with the soon to be F35).

I love the design, I love the concept. But Im more than ready to accept that its outlived its usefulness. It has gone the way of the dive bomber. It had a niche, but that role has been unfortunately supplanted by the endless march of technology.

>>35022564
>A-10s were at no point part of the combined-arms plan for both of the iraq wars until the airspace was completely controlled.
You might as well call the Marines in WWII were useless because they couldn't be landed on some or another island until someone had made sure that all the troop ships they were on wouldn't be sunk by submarines, battleships, or aircraft before they could be safely deployed.

Also, getting the airspace in Iraq "completely controlled" took how long, exactly?
>At that point you may as well be flying a cessna and pitch hand grenades out the window as a WWI LARP.
if you literally don't understand the difference in capabilities between an A-10 and a Cessna with some grenades on the passenger seat, you're either trolling or too dumb to have this conversation.
>There's no shortage of gun platforms that can operate in uncontested airspace (helis shine here especially), they may not have the 30mm BRRRT, but thats really not a big deal vs infantry. As for Missile/GBU-trucks, there's no shortage of platforms that can do that job equally well, and have a faster ToT, like the F15/16 (with the soon to be F35).
Bullshit. If this is true, why does the army throw a fucking fit whenever the USAF tries to retire the A-10 (which it has made a stab at doing every couple of years since the mid-90s)?

>>35022564
The design of the A-10 is indeed outdated, but the idea of a medium weight aircraft to provide endurance support to ground troops isn't. The answer is to replace it with something that does the job better, not expose our expensive to operate aircraft to combat envelopes that unnecessarily expose them to light AAA..