>turboprop fighters are becoming more common and needed again

But they're not fighters

>>35043443
I'm out of the loop, what's the difference between turboprop and normal prop, and why are they needed?

>>35043465
turboprop is powered by a turbine

File: Turboprop_operation-en.svg.png (297KB, 2149x1252px) Image search: [Google]

297KB, 2149x1252px

>>35043465

Ones it's basically a jet and the other is basically a normal engine with pistons.

Cheaper to blow mudslimes with.

>>35043465
Gas generators convert jet fuel to energy more efficiently than piston engines and they come in a smaller, lighter, longer-lasting package. Propellers convert power to thrust more efficiently than jets, but at a much lower speed. Thus, turboprops are needed for aircraft which require high power and long loiter but can accept slow speed in exchange.

>>35043443

>HURRRRR IT'S A SMALL PLANE IN THE SKY THAT MEANS ITS A FIGHTER!!!

>>35043443
>1 (one) .50 cal

File: idaho pilots dream.jpg (152KB, 1024x683px) Image search: [Google]

152KB, 1024x683px

>>35043443
>fighters
That's a fucking attack/recon aircraft you retard

>>35043586

There are two no?

>>35043590

Why the fuck use a farm-plane as an attack air-craft? Couldn't they just develop a new plataform for it?

Doesn't seem to fit the role very well.

>>35043465
>why are they needed?
Because it turns out we don't need a $120,000,000-a-piece STOVL-plane firing million-dollar-a-piece missiles to kill farmers in mud huts with AK-47s

>>35043626
>Why the fuck use a farm-plane

Very long loiter time
Very high relative payload
Extremely cheap to purchase
Extremely cheap to operate

Why not use a farm plane for this role?

File: biafra baby.jpg (94KB, 600x397px) Image search: [Google]

94KB, 600x397px

>>35043626
Farm plane aircraft are designed to carry heavy loads and have hardened airframes to handle crashes, they burn little fuel, are mass produced, and have low maintenance costs. It's a great platform.

Besides, stranger platforms have been used with great success.

File: OV-10D18.jpg (204KB, 1515x1176px) Image search: [Google]

204KB, 1515x1176px

>>35043626

>>35043683
This is so fucking cool, I imagine it as a kind of mini-AC130

>>35043443
One of my first red pills. Local AF ditched their camoflaged attack jets doing spin recoveries and gun runs, went to little orange propeller planes flying in formation. And I asked why.

>>35043443

Old school,modified.

OV-1's, with two -703 L53's stuffed in.
Two 20MM MkIV cannon internally, up to 7,000 pounds of external stores.
Full span roll spoilers, full span leading edge slats. Full span roll flaps.
Engines have airborne full beta mode.
Rudders have split mode for low speed manuverability and ground breaking. Full span roll control spoilers and flaps, leading edge slats and blown surfaces.
OV10-II, Two TPE331 1650 SHP turboshafts with airborne "beta".
Two 20mm MkIV cannon, up to 8000 pounds of stores.

Full span spoilers, slats and flaps. Ducted full axis control (Akin to the AV-8). Bifurcated vertical/horizontal stabs.

File: Brooklands-Aerospace_Optica_Srs_301.jpg (106KB, 1024x683px) Image search: [Google]

106KB, 1024x683px

Put some armour on it, get a nice PT6 in there and a gun turret and you're set.

Will these replace the A-10?

>>35043657
>>35043667
>>35043683


Doesn't seem very safe against enemy AA's.

>>35043802

OA-X hasn't finished yet.

But it's the only one who covers all USAF requirements and already won a contract against the AT-6 before(FMS). Who knows.

>>35043790

Is that made from a helicopter cockpit?

>>35043837
No, but it was intended as an inexpensive alternative to helicopters, so that is the idea.

>>35043845

Alternative? It's STOVL?

>>35043805
And exactly how much AA does Mohammed abu Mohammed have? Little to none. I notice LAAR haters never say this about helicopters, despite turboprop fixedwings being nearly 5x the survivability.

>>35043626
>cheaper than a helicopter to buy
>much cheaper than a helicopter to maintain
>flies in high/hot better than a helicopter
>stays around longer than a helicopter

>>35043924

What about dem ZSU's in Toyotas? Not to mention the MANPADS that misteruously appear in Mohammed's hands?

>>35043961
What about them? They don't seem to result in critique of A10s, which are more expensive to lose than an LAAR, or helicopters, which more expensive to lose and easier to kill, so what's the problem?

>>35043961
Then use flares m8.

>>35043996

The A-10 is build to handle 20/30mm impacts.

I don't see an Air-Tractor doing the same.

>>35043860
Yeah, "alternative" in the sense of the recon work that helicopters were considered the best for.

>>35043562
They also have a lower thrust to weight ratio then a jet.

>>35044015

I see, had it ever seen action?

>>35044014
>there is a small risk of dying in war
>shut down everything

No one cares that you're a pussy, anon. LAAR is better than A10s and helicopters for COIN, and helicopter and A10 pilots will line up for miles to get a plane that gets more mission time.

If not for Key West, we'd have been using Super Tucanos since the Cold War ended.

>>35044055

>you're a pussy for not putting your slow Farm plane against a crews of Abduls with 20mm cannons

This shit ain't Battlefield.

>>35043443
>Becomeing more common.

Nobody's interested. It's still more expensive then a drone and offers zero advantages.

>>35043443
Turboprop fighters are for dirt poor countries and subhuman niggers that can't maintain jet fighter aircraft.

What is better for CAS these turboprop planes or attack helis?

>>35044195
It's an unfair comparison. They are closer to scout helicopters then attack helios.

>>35044089
A crew of untrained Abduls with a collective IQ that probably doesn't breach 200 all swarming around a cannon attached to the back of a Hilux by Mohammed with a stick welder firing ammunition from 1954. Did I forget to mention they don't really grasp aiming or leading a target? You could probably put a turbo prop on an IL-10 and buttrape Akhbar and friends all fucking day and not really worry.

>>35044260

Idk man, most of ISIS in the beginning were former soldiers.

>>35043443
>turboprop fighters are becoming needed again
says fucking who

>>35043814
AT-6 has commonality going for it though. Also not sure we're gonna choose a Brazilian plane after they took the Gripen over the Hornet.

>>35044447

Well idk. I read somewhere that they would take the Hornet but after all the spying shitfest they choose the Gripen. Also i wouldn't believe they US govt would let Boeing transfer tech.

>>35043924
Where exactly are you implying, because planes were shot down on regular basis in iraq and syria

>>35044055
>helicopter and A10 pilots will line up for miles to get a plane that gets more mission time

Things that never happened.jpg

>>35044195
Fixed wing in general has better loiter time and is more survivable. Depending on the size can also carry more useful payload. Also (and this was a huge deal in Afghanistan) helos struggle in mountainous terrain because they're not designed to operate at high sea level altitude (for a while Chinooks were the only helos capable of crossing certain mountain ranges in Afghan)

Helos give easier precision of targeting umatched by any fixed wing except C-130 gun ships (literally able to fly an orbit while keeping their targeting optics fixed on a lone combatant hiding in the woods).

>>35044558
For example: say you're going up against a squad of enemies in the mountains. A JTAC will have to "steer" a jet or turboprop on target again and again every pass. On the other hand a helicopter of gunship can just sight in on the target once and stay "locked on" on its own from there.

File: landscape-1465829396-mwari-weaponised-big.jpg (213KB, 1600x800px) Image search: [Google]

213KB, 1600x800px

AHRLAC Mwari is the cutest turboprop, prove me wrong

>>35044632

Reminds me of the Argie Pucará.

>>35044605
Anon, you do know that in those apache videos the helo is making an attack run just like an warthog right?

It's only the TADS that stay fixed on target. The helo has to keep moving so the towelheads don't get lucky.

Same thing happens with the LANTIRN pod in the A 10.

>>35044370
The military that has over 70% of hornet airframes grounded due to lack of maintenance. The navy has to cherry pick planes from all over the US to keep a deployed squadron at full strength.

And guess what? Those squadrons that had to lend the planes will have less hornets for training.

You guys used up the planes to drop bombs on muhammad and his camels.

Better save the planes for John Chinaman you dumbass.

>>35044703
The helo is always moving, but can stay sighted in flying an orbit. It can also shoot from more locations within that orbit because of its turret cannon. It doesn't have to be flying straight at the target compared to most munitions launched from fixed wings.

As for a jet being able to track targets using LANTIRN or similar: can that be used to track an individual moving target as small as a single enemy solder running from cover? Because if it can, I'm sure it's hard as fuck to do compared to keeping the IR camera on an Apache trained on the same. Somehow I don't see Warthogs stalking lone Hadjis in the mountains running from tree to tree without ground control.

>>35044759
>sniper pods

Optical MTI is a thing now, anon. If LANTIRN is a still a thing I've never met a pilot who has used it, Sniper pods are the standard.

>>35044325
And ISIS now is literally islamic /r9k/

>>35043626
Because it's easier to use an off the shelf plane than trust the DoD with this shit. Even reconstruction the P-51's assembly line would be a better idea than trusting the DoD.

>>35044759
Yeah, but the reason you don't see the US going full rotorhead is speed. Sometimes you need to hustle to get ordnance on target and a helo would take too much time to arrive on station.

Turboprops are faster and have more range than helos and at the same time have a greater loiter time and better precision at CAS than jets.

>>35044786
Not very familiar with the technology, but if an A10 can get cleared hot to BRRRT some dude at 350kts, circle around, and shoot anywhere but the exact same spot he BRRT'd the last time without a JTAC correcting his target location, war truly has changed. I get using Sniper/whatever for tracking and hunting tanks, but if we're using it to kill mud hut inhabitants with no mobility besides their sandals I'd be hella impressed.

>>35043790
fuel consumption....

>>35044816
Not arguing any of that. I was replying to an anon asking about the advantages of both.

>>35044803

Won't agre.

>>35044842
Compared to a Typhoon or an Apache? Nothing.

>>35044325
He's underestimating the goat fuckers, hopefully just forhyperbolic effect, but they're professional soldiers from ARAB armies.

>>35043805
They're used in situations where there isn't dedicated AA though.

>>35043961
Theyre still faster and more survivable than a helicopter.

>>35044632
for once a turboprop close support aircraft that actually looks cool and functional

>>35044325
Former ARAB MUSLIM soldiers. AKA the worst uniformed fighting force to ever exist, except potentially the Tsarist Russian Navy.

>>35044996

They still have the experience regardless. Let's not get too stuck with memes here.

>>35045104
The only thing they have experience with is getting their shit pushed in by Western forces.

>>35044014
wrong, the a-10's cockpit is designed to survive some 23mm impacts. still very easy to shoot down.

the best way to survive AAA is altitude and speed.

File: p51_x_corsair___football_war_by_neuer_geist.jpg (96KB, 900x568px) Image search: [Google]

96KB, 900x568px

>1969
>Pic related
For reference
F-4 was introduced in 1960
Mig 25 in 1964
Six-Day War 1967
Harrier in 1969

>>35044260
Here's the thing. What you said is true. But by now, all the private abdul pyles are now dead. Only the best live on. And they teach the new recruits on the job with live ammo. You wonder why the Taliban is still around after literal decades of warfare against superior equipped enemies? Don't let your pol echo chamber rule your thinking.

>>35044632
Take a closer look at that snout!

>>35043443
>>soon we'll have WW2 style dogfights, now with missiles
Maybe when they figure out how to cut the radar signature of a spinning propeller to a square centimeter.

>>35044110
>It's still more expensive then a drone
No, it's not.

>>35046259
Yet despite that the average fighter over there doesn't aim, if given an RPG has an alarmingly high chance of blowing himself up or pantsing a guy behind them with backblast, or simply getting killed off in their first engagement.

The Taliban survives because it's a distributed and relatively loosely affiliated group of people that draws new members from local villages. Remember that the handful of occasions the Taliban tried to attack US forces head on it was an absolute massacre for them despite having a leadership cadre composed of large numbers of former Muhjahideen with decades of combat experience against the Soviet Army.
The Taliban and many groups like it don't survive by becoming a force of hardened mercenaries molding new recruits into fighters like COBRA, they survive by being a distributed group of people who recruit largely disposable soldiers from local villages who then serve as the bulk of their force. They receive just enough training to be somewhat effective and among the local populace they usually rely on intimidation and fear. Look at the number of failed IED and suicide bomb attacks over the years. These aren't indicative of an ever evolving and improving force but a rather swiftly rotated group of eager recruits who have more bravado than brains. You say that all the shitty soldiers are gone but it's painfully obvious that the middle east is still a clusterfuck of relatively untrained rabble going after each other. If they were slowly becoming more skilled you would see a lot more aircraft being threatened and less mindlessly wasteful use of armored vehicles.
Look back at Vietnam, the Douglas A-1 Skyraider was pretty dang successful in operation against the Vietnamese and they were actually formally trained with modern Soviet equipment. A more advanced aircraft fighting against lesser trained soldier with inferior or simply homemade versions of said equipment is going to have a field day.

>>35046579
I should not type shit up when tired, yikes.
In short, middle eastern fighters are becoming more skilled as they accumulate experience but said pool of people is tiny compared to Abu Hajar and friends. Time will tell if a Turboprop attack plane will work out over there but if I were a betting man I'd say it's going to work out.

>>35043562
>Gas generators convert jet fuel to energy more efficiently than piston engines
rofl no. Piston engines have much better specific fuel consumption. It's just that in airborne applications power-to-weight ratio usually counts more than mileage. Plus, gas turbines achieve higher compression ratios, which is important at higher altitudes. But they are gas guzzlers. If gas turbines were more efficient than piston engines we'd use them in cars, too.

>>35046597
No, this was good. Carry on.

File: Argentina_Air_Force_FMA_IA-58A_Pucara_Lofting-6.jpg (522KB, 1600x999px) Image search: [Google]

522KB, 1600x999px

I always thought these were neato looking planes

No idea how good they were

File: 1399778843873.gif (2MB, 328x268px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 328x268px

>>35046707
>>35046707
>No idea how good they were

>>35046728

Not really a fair test to pit a counter insurgency aircraft against an actual military

File: 40328264.gif (2MB, 204x306px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 204x306px

look how gayish it is in 2017

https://youtu.be/uqVYRPtkT24

bonus
https://youtu.be/-_FIC5my8y4

>>35043657
>Very long loiter time
But dusters don't need that at all. Not when they need to land and refill the hopper several times an hour anyways.

>>35046764
It's beautiful.
>Wasting a $50,000 smart bomb on a goatfucker instead of just dive-bombing them Stuka-style with roughly the same precision

>>35046834
>>Wasting a $50,000 smart bomb on a goatfucker instead of just dive-bombing them Stuka-style with roughly the same precision
they still fight in marawi.

>>35043961
>fly in whatever fancy-ass plane you want
>drop million dollar JASSMs on the AAA
>land fancy-ass plane because operating costs are through the roof
>fly in farming plane instead and kill the rest of the enemy

The farming plane isn't an alternative to a B-2 or an F-35 if that's what you were thinking

>>35046897
>they still fight in marawi.

As opposed to Iraq or Afghanistan?

What is your point?

File: apkws-hydra-components.png (101KB, 624x350px) Image search: [Google]

101KB, 624x350px

>>35046834
>Wasting a $50,000 smart bomb on a goatfucker instead of just dive-bombing them Stuka-style with roughly the same precision

Get with the times, APKWS II is clearly the way to go. Cheap rocket & warhead compatible with current launch systems with accurate guidance system.

$20.000 is currently possible with pin point accuracy.

File: APKWS-hellfirerack.jpg (23KB, 300x201px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 300x201px

And if you don't want to use Hydra 70 launch pods, a single Hellfire spot in the Hellfire racks can be replaced with a 4 rocket APKWS pod.

>>35046707
Gotta concur, they are aesthetic

>>35043961
while these are a threat, LGBs and ASMs tend to outrange these weapons pretty wel.

File: Capture.png (95KB, 707x340px) Image search: [Google]

95KB, 707x340px

>>35046809
>But dusters don't need that at all

Planes don't need that in a duster configuration though. But it won't be flying into combat in a duster configuration, will it?

>>35047040
>$20.000 is currently possible with pin point accuracy.
And is still more than said goatfucker makes in his entire lifetime. Smart weapons are absurdly expensive for COIN.

>>35047076
besides the fact that warfare is not a matter of defeating the enemy with weapons that are cheaper than theirs, where exactly are you getting your estimate for how much an insurgent fighter is worth?

File: APKWS-II_Loading_AT-6_Pod_BAE_lg.jpg (244KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

244KB, 1280x720px

>>35047076
>And is still more than said goatfucker makes in his entire lifetime. Smart weapons are absurdly expensive for COIN.

You realize that dive bombing exposes your plane to more accurate fire and that that would cost way more if you get hit, right?
You also realize how expensive flying and maintaining planes is?
You realize the cost of missing a target and causing collateral damage?

APKWS II offers pin point accuracy and low likelihood of collateral damage at low cost.

Also, APKWS II allows light planes (or drones) to carry far more missiles than what they could if they were carrying Hellfires or conventional bombs.

>>35046683

That's wrong.

They don't use them in cars because throttle response of turbines is much slower then piston engines, and turbines have a narrower power band. Cars need fast throttle response and need to deliver a wide power band and turbines just can't.

>>35047076
An insurgent only has to get lucky once while spraying bulelts with his AK, and he's done a LOT more damage than 20 grand.
How expensive are soldiers anon?

>>35047038
>What is your point?
efficiency. idiot.

You are now imagining China sending out an attack of 1,000 shitty one-man prop planes with modern hardware.

Shitty tanks are much slower, easier to shoot and easier to block; but shitty planes? What the fuck are you going to do against so many coming in so fast? No armed forces in the world (except for maybe NK and Russia) has the armed forces to deal with large quantities of low-quality aircraft.

Hellfire:
>45 kg
500 m – 8 km
450 m/s
$60000 to $110000

APWKS II equiped Hydra 70:
~15 kg
1,100–5,000 m (rotary wing)
2–11 km (fixed wing)
1,000 m/s
$20000 to $30000

>>35047186

Putting a million dollar pilot into a $100,000 aircraft is pretty stupid.

Beyond that, yes, the United States is quite capable of wiping out one thousand cheap aircraft. It helps that the US possesses nearly one thousand F-16, seven hundred F-18 and better then four hundred and fifty F-15 and one hindered and eighty five F-22.

Not to mention every other platform capable of carrying highly effective anti-aircraft missile, from non-fighter aircraft to surface ships and submarines.

Or you know, ten thousand 0351's with stingers.

File: Boxer attack on Admiral Seymour’s relief expedition at Lofa, 11 June 1900.jpg (469KB, 1500x1020px) Image search: [Google]

469KB, 1500x1020px

>>35043634
THIS !

File: ya blew it.gif (754KB, 400x358px) Image search: [Google]

754KB, 400x358px

>>35044632
>UCP

i am not an aviation fag, but hear me out

unmanned vessels with props and scram jets
any empty space could be filled with HE, but not entirely necessary

only use the prop to get up in the air, scram jets to get to ridiculous speeds
>REACH LOW ORBIT
>ACHIEVE GEOSYNCHRONOUS ORBIT OVER NORTH KOREA

if they try to start shit we can just bring that fucker down and hit the ground in 9 minutes, lay waste to their country, and kill everyone in it.

>>35047117
Throttle response is actually quite good on a turbo-prop/shaft engine. The problem lies in low rpm fuel consumption, which is horrible. Another problem is tolerances. If you look at small engines for rc-aircrafts or even small apus, they drink huge amounts of fuel relative to their size due to them not being manufactured precise enough. The tolerances in a jet engine are scarely small, and building even a car sized gas generator is a HUGE challange.
Then we have the service costs. Alla the bearings, oils and components are crazy. Do a hot start with your fictional turbo-toyota and you're broke.

File: erich-hartmann.jpg (18KB, 236x334px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 236x334px

>the return of prop aircraft to the battle field

Yes

File: 1024px-Piper_PA48_Enforcer_USAF.jpg (142KB, 1024x671px) Image search: [Google]

142KB, 1024x671px

>>35044811
>Even reconstruction the P-51's

They already tried that in the 1960s as a COIN aircraft for Vietnam, it was called 'The Enforcer'.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piper_PA-48_Enforcer

Wasn't viable because of the much larger number of early handheld SAMs in Vietnam which would have torn them to shreds, but that's less of a problem in ME for various reasons (including the fact that a lot of the early Strela batteries have probably expired by now)

File: geo.jpg (253KB, 3726x1020px) Image search: [Google]

253KB, 3726x1020px

>>35047436
Geosynchronous orbit is a bit higher up than low orbit. As in it's really, really preposterously fucking far up. I'm not sure what use you intend to get out of a jet engine up in LEO either, there ain't exactly any atmosphere to speak of up there.

>>35047436
>use the prop to get up in the air, scram jets to get to ridiculous speeds

Minimum speed of a Scramjet is mach 5, how do you intend to get there using just props?

>>35047200
>~15 kg
So we just need a plane armed with 90mm fast firing gun turret?

>>35043443
Here's a vid of the new Turboprops in action.

https://youtu.be/xD09Ia-DXkM

>>35047644
wed need thrusters which would work in low atmosphere to re enter anyway, supplment with those

>>35047583
see above

>>35047436
>>35047672
>geosynchronous orbit
It's like 22,300 miles above the surface of the Earth
>hit the ground in 9 minutes
You would have to be travelling like 150,000 mph to get from Geosynced orbit to surface in 9 minutes.

File: what's up.jpg (70KB, 736x552px) Image search: [Google]

70KB, 736x552px

>>35047650
You rang?

(I know it isn't 90mm but fuck you)

>>35044759
Well damn, when will we figure out the tech to put a turret on a prop plane?

>betarica deploys their betapeller-planes to deal with chadhadists
>chadhadist dual wields his russian Kords and single handedly knocks out an entire squadron
>betaricans return back crying to the pentagon

>>35044632
that looks like something from fucking avatar or halo

>>35047794
It looks like shit, I for one nominate reconstructions of the Hughes H-4 as the Air Force's premier COIN craft.

File: ac-130u-19990803ac130a.jpg (109KB, 1272x686px) Image search: [Google]

109KB, 1272x686px

>>35043443
We already have the solution to that problem.

>>35047802
that thing is huge, you might aswell ask the B-52 to be a COIN aircraft

>>35047807

They got retired no?

>>35043805
When the Russians first showed up over Syria, they showboated two hinds around a fuck ton of ISIS technicals shooting at them without a single hit. Durka AA is pathetic to non existant.

>>35048076
Sounds spurious considering Russia has lost helicopters to ISIS and would never be as stupid as to risk hardware like that

>>35047786
You should feel bad for taking the time to type that.

>>35043465
>and why are they needed?
The military is quickly slowly realizing the need for aircraft that don't fly at 500MPH, don't consume gallons of AvGas a minute, that can carry large payloads of relatively inexpensive ordnance, and that have relatively low maintenance costs and labor hours with the purpose of fighting dumb fuck towelheads with AKs and PKMs.

>>35043961
Old school ADA gunnery is actually a technical skill.

>>35047857
AC-130's? The original models yes. Hell even the remaining Dragonspears are getting phased out now last I heard in leui of Juliet models.

Overall they are still around and keep getting increased lethality modifications. Pretty much upgrading sensors, upgraded 25mm or 30mm depending on plane/varient, some getting ability to carry Hellfires and SBD's and also some getting internal Low-Collateral Missile launchers.

They are constantly getting modified and upgrading to find out what the best combination is.

>>35043961
The ZSUs in Toyotas can't hit shit if it's moving. They'd have a hard time hitting helis staying still.

>>35046707
>>35046728
>>35046744
In Argentine service, they were employed in the Falklands simply because they were the only aircraft in their inventory that could make use of the short runways on the islands. They didn't perform well against regular forces, obviously. The Sri Lankans used Pucaras successfully against the Tamil Tigers until the Tamils got SA-7s. Three out of four Pucaras in the Sri Lankan inventory were downed.

File: nMzTmz3.jpg (2MB, 2546x2146px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2546x2146px

>>35047650
106mm recoilless with revolver feed.

>>35043456
not with that attitude

>>35047117
>That's wrong.
No, it's right. Piston engines achieve around 220-250 g/kWh. Diesel engines in commercial trucks can even go as low as 180 g/kWh. Gas turbines are at around 300-1000 g/kWh.

File: GDI_ION_Cannon_Strike.jpg (89KB, 500x298px) Image search: [Google]

89KB, 500x298px

>>35047694
>travelling like 150,000 mph
No such word as "overkill" exists in the US dictionary.

>>35047436
Propeller aircraft wings and supersonic aircraft wings are entirely different beasts. Your flight envelope can only go so far, anon.

File: fuck you.jpg (44KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 640x480px

>>35043802
If the DoD is smart, no. Never trust the hues for anything.
>>35046058
>still very easy to shoot down
See pic
>the best way to survive AAA is altitude and speed
So somehow that means we need a slower plane with a lower ceiling?

>>35048418
That's not the problem. The problem is that you need to go from zero to 150 000 mph in a time frame significantly less than nine minutes. And that with a projectile sturdy and massive enough to still exist by the time it gets to the ground. Even if you take an entire minute to get up to speed, that's still over a hundred G of acceleration. That ain't happening.

>>35048500
Add to that the fact that it would most likely hit the atmosphere at 150 000 mph as well, unless you intend to slow it down before hitting Earth, which means you need to account for acceleration AND deceleration within your timeframe.

>>35048459
The super tucano has a service ceiling of 35k ft and a cruise speed of 281 knots which is high and fast enough to avoid any AA system that couldn't also target the A-10.

3rd world/gamer fantasy

File: HERE TO FUCK SHIT UP.gif (796KB, 300x169px) Image search: [Google]

796KB, 300x169px

>>35048528
A-10's top speed is 381 knots with a cruise speed of 300 knots. Ceiling is 45k feet. If it can hit an A-10, it can hit a Tucano.

File: blu129.jpg (68KB, 970x647px) Image search: [Google]

68KB, 970x647px

>>35047076
>Smart weapons are absurdly expensive for COIN.

If you don't give a fuck about collateral damage, like Russia in Syria. Meanwhile in the West.

>>35048646
>this level of cognitive dissonance from BRRRRRT fanboys

That A-10 wasn't flying at 45k feet when it was hit.

>>35048676
The Tucano would be flying at the same altitude at a lower speed, dumbass.

>>35048708
The Tucano would be making a low level pass using the pilots eyeballs to identify targets?

File: best girls.jpg (325KB, 2048x1365px) Image search: [Google]

325KB, 2048x1365px

>>35048737
>not using computers and optics that have worked perfectly fine since 2005 to perfectly survey and ID a target
Typical of a hue-lover. Besides;
>Tucano has no guns

File: 1491261490179.jpg (38KB, 560x560px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 560x560px

>>35043443
MY BODY IS READY

>>35044811
Why would we have to worry about DOD? Dont drones fill the role these planes would fill?

>>35048798
But it can get a 20mm cannon under the fuselage and comes with 2 .50 cals in the wings, and that guy was asking a question and I think he was implying that avionics comes with it, also of note

A-10
>combat radius of 288 miles

Best Taco
>combat radius of 342 miles

File: 1496423820581.jpg (2MB, 3176x1907px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3176x1907px

>>35048962
>20mm cannon under the fuselage
Overshadowed by the glory of the 30mm to the point of insignificance
>2 .50 cals in the wings
Like I said, no guns
>>combat radius
>monkey plane: too small to be refueled, turbulence just throws it around
>best ground-pounder: aerial-refueling for days

>>35043562
>turboprops are needed for aircraft which require high power and long loiter but can accept slow speed in exchange
>high power
>slow speed

Sorry for my retardation but how does this make sense?

File: Erica Hartmann.jpg (40KB, 350x523px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 350x523px

>>35047567
Yes

File: IMG_3980.jpg (92KB, 950x760px) Image search: [Google]

92KB, 950x760px

>>35049005
>only 30MM
beta tier bet you can't even effectively raid shipping with it

>>35049022
>Trains have 13,000+ horsepower
>Don't regularly go faster than 60 mph
How is this concept foreign?

>>35049005
Do they even use the 30mm these days? I heard the A-10 is just a missile range extender now

>>35049022
Big plane need big engine but big plane need stay big time. Big speed not big priority

>>35049022
Like a tugboat.

>>35043465
Turboprop has a turbine.

When you need something with high power a turbine is simpler and more reliable than a piston engine.
It's also more silent and has less vibrations.
Turbines also have advantages at altitude.

>>35047512
>Throttle response is actually quite good on a turbo-prop/shaft engine.
Because they can shift the prop blades.

>>35044035
Not really.

Propellers provide a higher thrust at lower speeds.
The Turboraven had 2800 pounds of thrust with a 750 hp engine
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BJWjbpA_zIc


At higher speeds jets and ducted fans have advantages because of less drag.

>>35044155
A turboprop is more complex than a pure turbojet though.

I'm not interested until the Navy gets one too

>>35049022
Think of it as torque over speed

>>35043590
>taildragger.
Could they... you know... make it tricycle?

>ITT nerds debate planes and guns

We've known the answer for a decade, guys: Super Tucanos with laser-guided 70mm.

>>35043443
nah never going to happen.

drones are cheaper

>>35049302
>Reaper $16.9 million per unit
>Super Tucano $9 to 14 million per unit
>Reaper $3k per flight hour
>Super Tucano $1k per flight hour
>and let's not forget that UAVs suck up precious bandwidth streaming video through the satellite backbone

Get fucked faggot. Someone too stupid to even google a topic doesn't deserve to live.

>>35049352
Reaper has a much higher service ceiling and can loiter much longer.

Also if it gets shot down you haven't just lost 2 men.

File: Mwari-AHRLAC-01.png (2MB, 1522x800px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1522x800px

>>35047802
>>35047411
Please do not bully the AHRLAC, she's trying her best

>>35044842
I meant the fuel consumption of the pt6 will bleed that thing dry in like 60 minutes. look at how much fuel that thing can't hold.

File: best girl is spooped.jpg (534KB, 2683x1686px) Image search: [Google]

534KB, 2683x1686px

>>35049074
I dunno, I think they use it only when necessary.

>>35049287
America will never fly the Super Taco

>>35044973
>looks cool
literally looks like a giant flying jew nose

>>35043443
>fighters

>>35049655
That's exactly the version America would have though

>>35047436
>i am not an aviation fag
>but hear me out

"No"

literally cried because how beautiful all of them are
what a fucking retard (me)

>>35050121
But America won't fly the monkey plane

>>35050180
what did he mean by this

>>35049088
kek

>>35050233
literally what I wrote
looked at some planes
have very emotional reaction
feel ashamed afterwards

>>35044753
This x1000

Turns out an endless war against dirt farmers is fucking stupid.

File: artworks-000075877369-c3ow6o-t500x500.jpg (45KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 500x500px

>>35050253
nigga u gay

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1XfbEwtqe0I

File: 1200px-Aeronave_A-29_Super_Tucano_em_voo_sobre_a_Floresta_Amazônica.jpg (325KB, 1200x799px) Image search: [Google]

325KB, 1200x799px

>>35050253
tacos are pretty though, like a futuristic mustang or something

>>35049387
>Reaper has a much higher service ceiling and can loiter much longer.
It's just a matter of design: 0 $.

>>35044632
>pusher instead of tractor propulsion
I thought pusher was vastly inferior?

>>35051046
>I thought pusher was vastly inferior?
It's a bit less efficient and a lot noisier, and also can have ground clearance issues (though not in this case), but it's plenty viable if other constraints (such as a chin-mounted camera or gun turret) favor it over a tractor.

>>35048292
nice. ive been thinking about how awesome a lightweight semi automatic vehicle based recoilless rifle would be after reading about the carl gustavs use against the taliban.

File: ms.jpg (5KB, 288x175px) Image search: [Google]

5KB, 288x175px

>>35047672
>>35047436
>he's never played KSP

File: 1052812965.png (449KB, 998x3175px) Image search: [Google]

449KB, 998x3175px

>>35043443
B-but why not just use qt & adorable light jets like yak-130?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MgLieyJPKb4

>>35043443
>soon we'll have WW2 style dogfights, now with missiles

That doesn't even make any fucking sense.
If you have missiles, what in the world compels you to enter a WW2 style dogfight?

>>35051542
You maybe be able to outsmart missile, but you can't outsmart bullet.

>>35047402
Boxer Rebellion art is best art

File: scorpion.jpg (193KB, 2000x1368px) Image search: [Google]

193KB, 2000x1368px

>>35051500

>>35051547

That doesn't answer my question at all.
Why would you enter into a dogfight in order to use your missiles?

>>35047040
>$20.000
Yuropoor spotted

>>35051581
>If you have missiles, what in the world compels you to enter a WW2 style dogfight?
Well I answered that question
But I don't know why you would dog fight and use missiles, im not op, so I can't answer that question.

>>35044004
Flares don't work on iglas.

>>35051547
bullets fly slower than missiles quite often

>>35051569
I don't know man, this plane has two jet engines, is big as fuck, has poor capabilities... It's only good point is that it's cheap.

>>35051569
Didn't they ditch this one because it wasn't able to land on rough surfaces? Shame, cool plane

>>35051500
>>35051569

USAF wants cheap and to be able to operate in non-paved fields.

>>35051721
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/army-apache-crew-members-honoured-for-actions-over-libya--2

>As the helicopter began its attack run, WO1 Lane was engaged by an SA-24 Surface to Air missile. Holding his nerve as the missile soared towards him, he was able to identify its firing point before using the aircraft’s flares to decoy the missile and return fire.

>WO1 Lane does not mind admitting to being genuinely in fear of never seeing them again in the seconds before the flare drew the missile away from the Apache.

>He said:

>It all happened really quickly, probably about five to six seconds, but as I saw the missile heading for us, I did think this could be it.

>Although I had come under small arms fire and anti-aircraft artillery attack before, this was the first time I had experienced a surface to air missile and, despite going through that scenario in a simulator, it was a real shock.

>The flare was deployed and I watched as the missile swerved at the last second. The adrenaline was pumping, my heart was thumping out of my chest.

>There was a sense of tremendous relief, followed by the realisation that it could happen again so we broke away from that zone but still had another aircraft engaging the target in that area.

>>35046834
>because they're expensive they can't be used on low value targets
because everyone is getting their money's worth when they sit in storage and never get used, right? Is it not optimal efficiency, maybe but it is more efficient to use them on perfectly viable targets than not using them at all. There is no sort of arbitrary value return in exploding an enemy with the correct value estimate munition.

>>35048798
>not using computers and optics that have worked perfectly fine since 2005 to perfectly survey and ID a target
>BRRRRT fanboy's cognitive dissonance continues

That A-10 wasn't flying high using modern optics, hence it got chewed up by AA that it didn't need to get hit by.

>>35052028
>Buy way more shit than you need
>Use it on stupid shit to justify buying it in the first place
Government logic

File: my waifu is sick of your shit.png (115KB, 280x325px) Image search: [Google]

115KB, 280x325px

>>35052133
I never said she was, you fuckin' retard. It's pretty clear she was on an attack run AFTER confirming the target.
>inb4 "Th-th-the hog is s-still b-bad! Th-th-th-the Tucano is better!"

File: FireShot Capture 128 - Google Search_ - https___www.google.ca_search.png (37KB, 750x325px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 750x325px

>>35051569
>two engines

Also top kek

File: YA-9.jpg (257KB, 1800x1195px) Image search: [Google]

257KB, 1800x1195px

>>35052549
>A-10
If anything it looks like the YA-9

>>35047186
>shitty prop
>coming in fast
Do you even read what you post?

>>35049352
>reaper is the only drone
a simple 50 dollar drone can lob a grenade 1km away

>>35043683
My cunt has a small wing of upgraded versions of these and are used to bomb rebel jungle mudslimes.

I must say that they are extremely cost-effective to the point that the munitions they carry are far more expensive than the plane itself.

File: Chrysler_Turbine_Car1.jpg (320KB, 1200x600px) Image search: [Google]

320KB, 1200x600px

>>35046683
>we'd use them in cars, too.

Ahem!

>>35051472
>not using RSS
>not even RealisticRescale
What a pleb

>>35052822
It's too bad Chrysler cancelled them because of cost concerns, the design was great.

>>35048350
>said attitude instead of altitude

ONE JOB

>>35052949
>the design was great.
No, it wasn't. It was shit with the Turbine Car, and it's shit in the Abrams.

>>35052822
>work on it for 30 years
>make only 55 units
>scrap most of them because they're pure shit
>meanwhile piston engine airplanes are actually a thing
(You)

>>35052438
Thank you for acknowledging the A-10 was flying lower than it needed to, allowing the AA to heavily damage the aircraft. Something even a turboprop plane like a Super Taco flying at 30k feet would never have to deal with.

>>35049067
but trains are limited to low speeds due to safety issues at higher speeds and maybe also due to the fact that they are hauling a fuckload of shit

if you put that train on a straight rail in ideal circumstances and cared not for it's wellbeing after it speeds up, and assuming that it is by itself with no fuckhuge line of cargo, it could probably reach some insane speeds

bad analogy

>>35055916
not really the train he's referring to would is a freight train that need all that power in order to tow several hundred tons of cargo. Same af how your truck probably has twice as much torque as hp in order to tow a 3 ton trailer.

>>35048646
yes, but A-10s are significantly more expensive to operate than proper COIN aircraft. hence, the A-10 will be replaced with a light aircraft that operates for low cost in permissive environments.

>>35043443
>soon we'll have WW2 style dogfights, now with missiles
missiles mean air combat is at BVR range.

Even with propeller power, radars and missiles are good enough that you will still shoot down your enemies BVR.

Props just mean you will be slower and it will be harder to avoid missiles moving at mach 3.5

>>35047727
The Italians had a bomber with a 102mm cannon in it iirc

>>35043590

Again, I really do hope this wins overall just to spite the goons in the sexy-plane mafia.

>>35048646
you can operate an entire squadron of tacos for the maintenance cost of one a-10

>>35056028
It has no ejection seats.

I think they nerfed plane RP in RB. I got 4 planes kills and 2 tanks and I got just 1300RP with my Corsair.

>>35049067
>His trains doesnt go faster then 60 mph

What kind of subhuman country do you live in? even our freight trains usually moves much faster than that.

>>35047081
>besides the fact that warfare is not a matter of defeating the enemy with weapons that are cheaper than theirs
>implying money doesn't matter when it comes to war
>USA
>US
>USS?
>USSR!
>>35047124
>An insurgent only has to get lucky once while spraying bulelts with his AK
The chance of a soldier getting killed by a snackbar is a much greater than a pilot getting hit while going 200+ MPH with course adjustments, by your logic we should get rid of infantry.
>How expensive are soldiers anon?
A lot less than a 18.8 million dollar A-10?

>>35056186
And no pressurized cockpit.

>>35045104
Like how in Desert Storm the Iraqi Republican Guard were "hardened veterans" of the Iran-Iraq War? And we all remember how that turned out.

>>35056309
>He thinks his stupid euroshit trains weigh even 1/10th of my freight trains.

>>35047186
It would be a complete wipe resulting in lot of new aces. A single F-15C can shoot down 16 props with missiles alone, and F/A-18's could knock out 8 each. Our 200+ F-35's could also be fitted with a2a missiles and take down just as much if not more.

>>35047186
You overestimate the cost of a sidewinder.
And there are still a lot of old ones left to rot.

Pilots are expensive as fuck too.

>>35043443
>WW2 style dogfights,
>with missiles
pick one.

>>35047076
>And is still more than said goatfucker makes in his entire lifetime.
You can't into war economy m8. Sorry but you can't.

>>35048087
Russia could manage to lose helicopters just fine even without an enemy to fight so i am not sure what you are trying to say?

>>35053595
>doesn't know attitude is a positional aviation term

File: Bronco doing Bronco things.jpg (83KB, 1262x781px) Image search: [Google]

83KB, 1262x781px

>>35046897
>they still fight in marawi.
The Peenoise killed shitloads of their own people & soldiers with divebombs going off target.

>>35057248
When you let monkeys sling poo there is bound to be some friendly fire.

>>35056789
How they shot down/damaged so many A-10's in a short time that A-10's were restricted from going after them?

AT-6>A-29

>>35057377

>lost FMS contract

No.

File: IMG_2083.jpg (101KB, 675x404px) Image search: [Google]

101KB, 675x404px

>>35057576
The intense lobbying used to get the Taco selected for Afghan airforce does not apply to US procurement, especially when the USAF had a hand in designing the Wolverine.

>>35051046
>>35044632
Dat vision, its like flying on bar stool.

>>35057669

>foreign defense company managed to lobby his product into a US federal program

Just how fucking retarded are you?

>>35057766
You are arguing against something that wasn't said.

>>35044089
They can drop paveways, Mavericks and JDAMs right? You don't even have to get within the effective range of a ZSU or ZPU then

>>35046764
>all thats missing is the Stuka siren.

If this were a western piloted or maintained. Few you could bet money on the fact that someone would bolt that Jericho horn on there.

>>35043443
I'm personally looking forward to the resurgence of iron bombs and dive bombing from turboprop aircraft.

Plus you know that if one gets properly adopted, somebody will eventually double the engine power and make them supersonic

>>35057766
M8, the Super Toucan is a brazillian aircraft, brazillian designed, most are brazillian made. The ones in the US an Afghanisthan were built in Florida I think, but still, how a brazillian company that makes small passenger aircraft in another country lobby it's way into a contract?

File: best girl anatomy.jpg (1MB, 2000x1280px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2000x1280px

>>35055840
A taco couldn't have accomplished the same mission though. It doesn't carry nearly as much boom-power, and would have had to go back home to resupply.
>>35055973
>>35056175
Tacos may be cheaper, but they're less effective and have lower survivability. Which would you prefer, an entire fireteam armed with FP-45 Liberators, or one guy with type 3 plates and an M4?

>>35058153
Why would you make a supersonic prop plane? The retardation of this concept triggers my autism

>>35058702
First off, there are COIN aircraft besides the Super Tucano. Second off, your analogy is fucking garbage. All A-10s do these days is drop PGMs from 30,000 feet. Any COIN aircraft can do that just as well at a fraction of the cost. There is no niche for the A-10 anymore.

>>35058717
>He doesn't know that it's impossible for a propeller driven aircraft to reach supersonic speeds in level flight.

File: 1499750257520.jpg (21KB, 210x243px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 210x243px

>>35058980
>First off, there are COIN aircraft besides the Super Tucano
Like the OV-10? Yeah, we're already using those. No need for a huenigger plane.
>All A-10s do these days is drop PGMs from 30,000 feet. Any COIN aircraft can do that just as well at a fraction of the cost
With reduced effectiveness and lower chance of survival.
>There is no niche for the A-10 anymore
>what is hitting hard targets?
Better to have and not need than need and not have, faggot. Everyone on /k/ knows that. Take your huenigger plane elsewhere.

>>35059057
>and lower chance of survival.
Lower chance of survival against what?
ISIS building their own Sa-2 copies out of sewer pipes and old electronics junk now?

>>35058702
>FP-45
>M4

False equivalence when the A-10 and A-29 use the same weapons, except the 30mm (which requires flying down to AA level, btw).

>>35059057
>He think the A-10 is super survivable in a contested air environment.

>>35059057
A-10s are DOA in any contested airspace, and just as survivable as any COIN aircraft in a permissive airspace, except they cost way more than COIN aircraft. The A-10 is no more effective at dropping PGMs than a COIN aircraft. It is a massive waste of money that should have been retired decades ago.
>hitting hard targets
With what? PGMs? They're cheaper and more effective than using that antiquated autocannon.

File: demonhee-ho.jpg (90KB, 300x190px) Image search: [Google]

90KB, 300x190px

>>35059201
AAA and MANPADs, which we all know ISIS has.
>>35059224
The taco only has 5 pylons, the A-10 has 8. Furthermore, those .50s need to get even lower.
>>35059281
Nice strawman.
>>35059755
>just as survivable as any COIN aircraft in a permissive airspace
And if the enemy has MANPADs and AAA?
>except they cost way more than COIN aircraft
Price doesn't matter when success is critical
>The A-10 is no more effective at dropping PGMs than a COIN aircraft
Still carries more.
>It is a massive waste of money that should have been retired decades ago
The B-2 is a massive waste of money that should have been retired decades ago. The B-52 is a massive waste of money that should have been retired decades ago. The F-16 is a massive waste of money that should have been retired decades ago.
>With what? PGMs? They're cheaper and more effective
You can't carry as many PGMs on a taco.
>that antiquated autocannon
>antiquated
REEEEEEEEEEE
Seriously though, the .50s on the taco are 50 years more antiquated the 30mm, and are infinitely less effective. Again, better to have and not need than need and not have.

>>35060365
>Not understanding that the A-10 is an obsolete piece of shit that only retards and congressmen cling to.
Who cares if one set of guns requires you to get slightly closer than another? They both get you shot down in a contested air environment. The A-10 is just as survivable as a Tucano in the same operating circumstances. Yet the Tucano is cheaper to purchase and operate. Vastly so.

>>35060365
>AAA
AAA is irrelevant. Modern aircraft do not conduct any mission at ranges where AAA is a danger. The A-10 is just as vulnerable to MANPADS as a COIN aircraft with the same systems.
>carries more
Except the extra hardpoints aren't used.
>that entire autocannon argument
They're useless. That's like saying bomber aircraft should still have tail gunners.

The A-10 is an aircraft without a mission. It should be replaced by an aircraft more suitable for counter-insurgency. Regardless of how much you love your shitbox, they are overdue on their airframe life spans, and will be flown out of the sky one way or another, with no direct replacement.

>>35061382
>retards and congressmen
No need to repeat yourself.

File: 1499750108002.jpg (64KB, 332x346px) Image search: [Google]

64KB, 332x346px

>>35061382
>Who cares if one set of guns requires you to get slightly closer than another?
Nigger it's not just fucking range, it's also the fucking power. You're not gonna knock out nearly as much with a set of .50's as you will with BRRRRT. Your argument has gone into Pierre Sprey-tier territory.
>The A-10 is just as survivable as a Tucano in the same operating circumstances
AAA and MANPADS. HOW MANY TIMES DO I HAVE TO SAY THIS?
>>35061503
>AAA is irrelevant. Modern aircraft do not conduct any mission at ranges where AAA is a danger
So what, we should use an aircraft with less range, less boom-power, less speed, and a lower ceiling? Your logic has circled back around to a post made 32 hours ago.
>The A-10 is just as vulnerable to MANPADS as a COIN aircraft with the same systems.
No, it's not. The huemobile is more likely to not make it home than Freedom Dispenser Mk. X
>Except the extra hardpoints aren't used.
Fucking prove it
>They're useless.
Again, prove it, you literal fucking retard
>inb4 the "B-B-BUH DA CANNON C-CAN'T PENETRATE T-60S!" myth

>>35061649
>Another BRRRRRRT retard.
The point is you're not using the GAU-8 much any more. It cannot penetrate modern heavy armor. It's just not viable when you can drop a bomb much more accurately from 30,000 ft. As such, your aircraft built around it is not viable anymore. It's a relic.

>>35056996
That you're a liar

File: 220px-Pucara_armamento_picture.jpg (12KB, 220x165px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 220x165px

>>35043443
>>35043456
Yes they are

>>35061649
>proofs!

since you obviously don't understand anything about how modern CAS and COIN missions are conducted, there's no point in talking to you. educate yourself on the manner and you'll understand why the A-10 is a relic.

>>35061649
>No, it's not.
During Desert storm A-10 had less than 50% survivability rate against 9IR SAMs.

>>35057336
SAMs are OP against pigs. Pre war idea was to pretend that soviet short range SAMs don't exist, only AAA are real and build A-10 CAS tactics round that...

>>35061950

Nice pic.

t. Ant

>>35062045
>doesn't have a response
>hurr you tupid, im not gonna esplain

>>35062113
Go back to your containment board you idiot

>>35062203
I have, and its fucking retarded
Just like you

>>35062181
fuck off jew.

File: 1504482357991.png (306KB, 700x662px) Image search: [Google]

306KB, 700x662px

>>35062227
>le Jew
I bet you blame everything on the kikes,don't you?
>>35062236
That's rich coming from a Nazi larper

>>35062289
I know exactly what you are about
And I wipe my ass with it

File: give proofs.png (37KB, 1234x815px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 1234x815px

>>35061757
>sandniggers have armor from after 1990
You are fake news.
>inb4 "LOL JUST USE COIN FOR SHITTY SAUDI SUPPLIED APCS FROM 1950-1980"
>>35062045
>>35062066
See pic
>>35062289
First off, the 4th reich existed in 1938-1945. America is the kingdom to last a thousand years and anyone who says otherwise is a fucking faggot
Mods, just kill this thread already. It's been shit from the very beginning, and it's just getting worse.

>>35049202
They dont "shift" the blade. If you're talking about cobstant-speed propeller they change the blade angle to get the desired speed, keeping engine rpm constant.
Engines with low inertia (think fly wheel weight) will actually have near piston-engine spool times, of course slower but still pretty close. Especially if they are lp/hp-compressor engines where there is two separate compressors with their own turbines.

File: bulges.jpg (32KB, 586x391px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 586x391px

>>35051569
Doesn't have the neoteny of >>35051500
Planes need style extremity, or end up plastic container tier. Even F35 has thicc bih appeal.

>>35061950
>future for canada

>>35051500
just buy the italian version the M346 master

File: This is supposed to threaten a first-world grade military.jpg (97KB, 800x495px) Image search: [Google]

97KB, 800x495px

When will you learn that the western military doctrine is to spend more and more in order to maintain the military-industrial complex and the dependency of the State to the private banking system ? That's why we fire 50,000 dollars-per-unit missiles from a 15,000,000 dollars platform crewed by a 9,000,000 dollars trained pilot to kill a trio of goat farmers caryying 50 dollars AKMs and a 150 dollars RPG. It makes only sense when you account for political factors.

File: adolf.jpg (89KB, 768x432px) Image search: [Google]

89KB, 768x432px

>>35048265
>The Sri Lankans used Pucaras successfully against the Tamil Tigers until the Tamils got SA-7s. Three out of four Pucaras in the Sri Lankan inventory were downed.

TFW the Sri Lankans only had 4 in inventory.

>>35057248
>>35057274
Flip here. That's because its the first time for 2 decades the air effort of the Philippines in used again in action. What do you expect?

>>35047436

Play kerbal before you post that garbage again.

>>35066992
Friendly fire was found due to CCRP error. That is to say, they failed to release the bomb at a precisely calculated point in time even when aided by a computer. The OV-10 actually had better results than their FA-50.

File: 7be8c15623725d3c8e4672b22278a8c3.jpg (113KB, 549x907px) Image search: [Google]

113KB, 549x907px

>>35065168
f35 looks like it has a boner tucked into blue jeans

>>35048377
I won't believe an anonymous poster without some sort of reference. If a gas turbine were able to achieve 4x the fuel efficiency of a piston engine they'd have found their way into trains, industrial generators, and more than just aircraft where power to weight is more valuable than fuel efficiency.

>>35070192
>He doesn't know that turbines are regularly employed in industrial power generation.