OA-X Completes first round.

The same as any other shitty slow aircraft with limited manueverability and long loiter times.

Except these are more economical and not relics of the Cold War.

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

101KB, 675x404px

>>35107412
Afghanistan and Syria are a given, the question is which aircraft got selected.

>[AT-6 intensifies]

>>35107607

None, that's they they're sending them there.

>>35107412
man... this is all so badass

holy hell do you think`they will wear those leather helmets just to spite people

>>35107655

What?

>>35107412
About time.

Its taken 16 years for the Air Force to admit that that we are fighting low intensity conflicts. Hopefully this will lower the costs of the forever war.

>>35107718
>lower the costs of the forever war
lololololololololololololololoolololololololololol, an optimist are we?

>>35107729
>an AT-6 has the same fuel and maintenance costs as an F-16
[citation needed]

>>35107750
Don't go >implying
They'll find some other way to waste money is all I mean. They always do.

>>35107759

We need to pay fo dem lobbysts and congressman.

>>35107412
when rebels grow Anti-Air SAMs on trees they might be a bit dangerous to use

>>35107655
No, the modern HUD helmet shit is too good

>>35107878

>OA-X planes start their bombings in Syria
>rebels and IS magically starts receiving AA SAMs
>OA-X planes fall like flies
>OA-X cancelled and A-10 stays for another 40 years.

>>35107913
can you imagine the outrage against the country that gave terrorists SAMs?

>>35107878
MANPADs have an altitude limit that you are well above when not forced to BRRRRRT by fudds of the aircraft world.

Scorpion will win

>>35107913
A-10's are more vulnerable to SAMs because muh low and slow.

>>35107926

Yeah, i mean look how many are asking on how Rebels and IS manages to have top-notch rmament.

>>35107948
no one cares because a Western country isn't fighting them

>>35107947

It's a meme you dip.

>>35107936
yeah but the brrrrt has a magical intimidation and psychological effect on all combatants that just isn't there for rockets from space

>>35107607
>Afghanistan and Syria are a given
Doubtful on Syria. That war will be over before OA-X officially enters service.

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/syrian-war-ending-bashar-al-assad-won-robert-fisk-syria-middle-east-israel-british-troops-a7933966.html

>>35107718
this, 1000x this

They have almost completely depleted our fast attack aircraft bombing dirt farmers.

The pentagon is filled with idiots.

Whichever wins I'm sure someone is going to bitch about US military procurement because they didn't pick the obviously superior plane of bitcher's choice

>>35107913
This SAMs would be toast vs SEAD again (Iraq, Libya). Anyway you don't want to do CAS in the AD reach with any aircraft. US tried in Vietnam and lost 2000 jets.

>>35108093
Yeah, CAS is one of those "this war is already over" things if you can pull it off against actual nations

>>35107992
Which is great in permissive airspace, not where SAM's are prolific.

>no OV-10x
FUCCCCCCKKKKK YOUUUUUUUUUU

>>35108173
Not with the F-35

>>35108058
Nobody's going to win. The whole program is deigned to prove that the light attack aircraft concept is flawed and pointless so they can scrap it and put the money into other programs.

No gunpods? Just rockets and hellfires?

>>35107926
https://youtu.be/ToMKLSkzpxE?t=4m11s

"Oops, my bad" -Putin

>>35107620
>None, that is they they are sending them there.
What?

>>35108676
gunpods are ineffective and inaccurate and shake airframes to pieces, that's why we invented the A-10

I have a question. Might it be the case that these planes put out less of a heat profile than conventional jet powered attack planes? If that's the case, wouldn't they be less vulnerable to anti-air missiles?

>>35108803
if my computer rig is anything to go by all they need to do is water cool them and they'll be room temperature

This should be cheap but knowing government procurement it will somehow end up making cost more then an F-16.

>>35108832
Look at the retard and laugh.

File: 1386017305295.gif (2MB, 320x238px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 320x238px

>>35107412
>Turboprop intensifies

>>35108793
Building this without 4-6 50 cals mounted in the wings is a crime.

File: KAI FA-50.gif (51KB, 675x584px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 675x584px

>>35107412
The USAF should adopt the T-50/FA-50 as its new trainer and light attack aircraft.

>>35108093
>implying MANPADS is picked up in a normal SEAD sweep
>implying they have any radars to guide ARMs towards
>implying denying the enemy the ability to fly isn't the ultimate goal

Can't they just reactivate a bunch of old P-51?

>>35109026
>reactivate a bunch of literal museum pieces

>>35109081
Like the Iowa

>>35108724
Infinity more likely that was taken from SAA stocks. There is plenty of photographic evidence of ex-SAA and ex-Libyan MANPADS entering the black market.

Putin is not going to give non-state actors MANPADS into an area the RuAF is using hilicopters.

>>35109015
OA-X can easily fly over MANPADS engagement envelope. This is "Buk Boeing Nemesis" they should fear.

>>35107926
I'm willing to bet the Saudis are probably involved.
>>35107947
>A-10's are more vulnerable
Wrong, Tucanos fly even lower and slower

>>35109026
>Can't they just reactivate a bunch of old P-51?
You mean buy the few remaining ones back from their civilian owners for more than it would cost to build an OA-X?

Also, the P-51 was a brilliant fighter, but shit at ground attack, as we found out in Korea.

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

271KB, 1800x1179px

>>35107412
This idea has been around for a while. Glad to see they are looking into it.

>>35109339
You sure? Especially if they make use of inexpensive munitions like rockets. God loves rocket pods.

File: C-160_Chaffs-flares_Pod.jpg (240KB, 2548x988px) Image search: [Google]

240KB, 2548x988px

>>35107913
Podded EW/ Chaff/ Flare.

File: T32C6.jpg (64KB, 800x450px) Image search: [Google]

64KB, 800x450px

>>35110063

>>35110063
>>35110135
What is this stone age?

File: ron_paul_yelling.jpg (8KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 480x360px

>>35107799
>We need to pay fo dem lobbysts and congressman.
Paying for some authoritarian to take your guns away. Why not support the freedom Caucasus instead? You do know Ron Paul's position on all the wars right? He also wants to be nice to drug addicts as well so he is actually far more liberal than any authoritarian (((democrat))) and he is basically a classical liberal and is nice to gays as well. Republicans used to want states to have more rights (republic) instead of having one giant mob rule control the country. Authoritarian liberals have tried to convince gay people and minorities that they need a strong central power to protect them from rogue states like SC with the bathroom debacle but that has been disproven because trumpo banned gays from the military so the point is that DECENTRALIZED authority hedges against a single fault compromising the whole system.

Anyway Ron Paul on all the wars:
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M9gRzA4XfLI

I know your teachers and whatever convinced you that (((liberals))) and I used to believe the same thing but recently I have noticed that liberals were just authoritarians masquerading as populists and there is a better chance of reforming the republican party because they actually value logic. Well except neo-cons but they are just the other side of the coin with authoritarian neo liberals.

Also him defending your right to do drugs against a bunch of bloodthirsty authoritarians:
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lyV9Owe3ojA

In this last interview Ron Paul says that smoking cigarettes is way worse than many drugs (he is a doctor) and the giant douchebag moderating the "debate" yells at him that he doesnt know what he is a talking about while smoking a cigarette. He died from lung cancer only a few years later in an ironic twist of macabre justice. He also was dogmatic about drugs but unironically was part of the "National Smokers Alliance." Lots of hypocrasy and irony.
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morton_Downey_Jr.

>>35110312
>>35110339
cute!

>>35110312
>>35110339

Fun fact, KAI's turboprop trainer were developed by the same engineers who made the Tucano.

File: SAMvsHARM-China.jpg (182KB, 600x575px) Image search: [Google]

182KB, 600x575px

>>35108093
>SEAD

File: air force practices his reading skills with disappointing results.jpg (40KB, 591x394px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 591x394px

>>35107718
>the Air Force to admit t
The Air Force didn't admit shit, their hand was forced by Congress and the other branches. Air Force is too stupid to come to these conclusions on their own.

>>35110843
The Air Force isn't too stupid to admit this shit. It's just that all the brass are owned by lockmart and boeing.

>>35110697
this graph is very poorly labeled
what does it mean

>>35110697
Are you to trying to sell F-35 to me?

>>35111237

?

>>35107913
>A-10
>not extremely vulnerable to SAMs

pick uno

>>35107992
just like racking the shotgun

>>35108608
woke as fuck

>>35108803
Most anti-air (Russian and American) air defense systems use radar. There are a few interceptors that use infrared guidance like the stinger/avenger and a couple of HIMAD systems but the hig end, upper-tier air defense systems use certain types of radar for guidance.

>>35111609
>Tucano
>not being even more so

>>35110296
Just go full libertarian and stop trying to fix a party that is too corrupted to ever return to meaningful representation of liberty.

>>35111845
Yeah but wouldnt a stealth libertarian pretending to be a republican be the best way to get into positions of power?

Third party hasnt worked yet..

>>35107412
>What are the risks for these planes in such theater?

Turboprop literally have less noise signature than jet turbines (Helicopters). On an auditory level they are less likely to be detected by MANPADS and SPGAA without radar. A plane like that has about twice the TOT with better turning than the current strikers besides drones.

>>35110697
Someone explain the horizontal axis to a brainlet like me

File: at-6.jpg (95KB, 700x417px) Image search: [Google]

95KB, 700x417px

not gonna lie I kinda like the AT-6 wolverine.

>>35112664
aircraft radar signature

>>35112664
RCS = Radar Cross Section

File: shock.jpg (98KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

98KB, 1280x720px

>>35112677
>AT-6 wolverine
jesus christ here i was thinking they were tacos all along

>>35112664
How big it shows up on radar. Left is low RCS, right is high RCS. It's basically saying that SEAD missions with conventional aircraft will be outranged by the SAMs.

File: 2010.10.24_공군_제8전투비행단_KA-1_전술통제기_ROK_AirForce_8th_Fighter_Wing_KA-1_(15714154481).jpg (57KB, 1024x680px) Image search: [Google]

57KB, 1024x680px

>>35110564
>KAI's turboprop trainer
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KAI_KT-1_Woongbi

yes it looks similar

>>35108187
the A-10 was built to attack red army formations during a hot war in europe, and you're saying it can't survive ina SAM environment? The whole point of low slow flying and pop-up attack is to make yourself harder to track and engage with radar guided SAMs.

>>35108983
Close enough to shoot it with guns means close enough for it to shoot back with bigger guns.
.50 cals have less range than 23mm AA guns and an unarmored light attack airplane could not survive being engaged by a concealed AA gun it didn't see during a gun run.

>>35108037
cant mossad the assad

>>35113271
>SAMs haven't evolved in 4 decades

>>35113336
Tell us how exactly the SAMs today can counter the tactic he mentioned.

>>35113271
>The A-10 was conceived for CAS and rotary-wing escort in the circa-1966 SEA threat environment. The gun was originally put there to take out 'hard targets' which COULD include some tanks (would have been awesome at An Loc) , but when the Fulda Gap scenario passed into history, Meat-Servo mission-hacker bravado aside, a collective sigh of relief was heard 'round the A-10 driver (and Army Helo) world.
>The A-X RAD called for fixed, internally mounted guns with a “capability equal to or better than four M-39 20mm guns". It also added consideration for a large caliber semiautomatic recoilless rifle. A minimum of six ordnance stations were required capable of delivering all types of conventional ordnance projected for use through 1970-1985. Although the intended operating scenarios stressed a permissive environment, the CFP was to consider the feasibility of incorporating a limited air-to-air missile capability as a defensive measure.
>Survivability from ground fire was an essential characteristic for the A-X. Structural and system design would need to provide inherent survivability, to include self sealing fuel tanks and, if power flight controls were used, a manual backup system would be provided. The pilot and critical flight systems would be protected from 14.5mm projectiles (common Soviet Anti-Aircraft shells).

The A-10's combat history shows it wasn't survivable in a SAM environment.

>>35108049
>The pentagon is filled with idiots.
The Pentagon is trying to build a first-rate military, but Congress and the White House just want a toy to knock over sandcastles with.

>>35113271
And even then they were expected to suffer something on the order of 50% casualties within a day.

Meanwhile, operational experience showed how retarded *any* low level attack profile is. No amount of armoring is enough to protect an aircraft from ground fire, and no amount of SEAD can reasonably eliminate distributed air defense assets - SPAAGs, MANPADS, and just guys on the ground shooting into the air.

The Gulf War showed how retardedly vulnerable the A-10 was when flying that profile. As the Iraqi Army fell apart at the end of the war, they gave A-10s the greenlight to go do their signature low-level runs on the retreating Iraqis. Despite the horrendous state of the Iraqi Army at the time, they still managed to down three A-10s and damage several others in a day. Losses were bad enough that the A-10s were withdrawn prematurely and F-16s were sent in their place. A-10s proved that, even against a disorganized opponent, they were too vulnerable to operate in an environment with SPAAGs or MANPADS.

>>35113365
Not him, but I've got some.Faster target acquisition and engagement. Active seeker heads. Longer range IR missiles. Dual headed seekers. Hell, even just some fucker with a radar guided autocannon (while not a SAM, it's a component of the IADS, and several prominent systems carry both autocannons and missiles).

>>35113366
And the Tucano, a plane even less well armored, with an even lower speed and ceiling, is?

>>35113427
Dead meat if a SAM of any sort is in the area.

>>35113443
Exactly. Therefor, in the argument between those who support the Hog and those who support the Tucano, the SAM element is moot, as even if either of the planes could survive, it would always be the Hog.

>>35113413
This is why mid Cold War tactics don't work today and why mid Cold War doctrine should have been abandoned decades ago. The A-10 is literally just a holdover from an ancient time, a vestigial organ of the Air Force's pointy end.

If you want to make something dead you drop a bomb on it from a high speed jet that is protected from SAMs by anti-radiation aircraft, not get right up in their face with a slow moving cloud of metal that has to line up an attack with its gun like a fucking Stuka from WWII and hope its armor saves your ass.

>>35113427
The difference is that the A-10 is flown as a CAS platform, whereas the A-X is supposed to be a COIN platform.

The A-10 can perform COIN duties as well, but the problem is that - while cheaper than many other planes we operate - it's still more expensive than a dedicated COIN plane.

>>35113666
Then why not have both A-10s and Tucanos at the same time? One for CAS, one for shitty COIN ops?

>>35113687
Because the F-35 will be able to do the A-10's job better.

>>35113666
A-10 isn't cheaper then a F-16 to operate.

>>35113687
A-10 are obsolete aircraft and reaching the end of their service life. Combat aircraft aren't fine wine, when they get older they get more expensive to operate safely and develop more problems, while at the same time missing capabilities of up-to-date craft.

>>35113687
Because the A-10 is no longer adequate for CAS and too expensive for COIN.

>>35113687
Because the A-10 is more than 10x as expensive per flight hour and can only deal with threats marginally more dangerous than what a Super Tucano, etc could deal with.

>>35113413
yep ' Every Man a Tiger' by Tom Clancy & General Chuck Horner commanded the U.S. and allied air assets -- has in depth description of how shit tiered Iraqi air defenses in last days of the war after getting pounded still was able unleash a shit storm on A-10s.

>>35112687
>>35112693
>>35113113
Thanks fellas

>>35113427
>both do CAS/COIN
>both need permissive environments against high end SAMs

"The 10x cost of operating an A-10 means it's better." - BRRRRRT fanboy

>>35113994
and yet a B-52 flying at max altitude with a belly full of GPS guided semi-glide artillery rounds w/ extended battery is cheaper, faster, and smarter. neat. No need for powder charge, and its dirt cheap.

see: M1156 Precision Guidance Kit

>make it rain

File: 1476913281699.png (411KB, 608x541px) Image search: [Google]

411KB, 608x541px

>Sudden surge of FN-6s appearing in Insurgent hands

>>35114099
Only if you have a large number of targets, which is rarely the case in COIN.

If you only need to hit a handful of targets the economy of scale offered by a bomber doesn't come into effect.

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

142KB, 1024x671px

>>35109026
The enfosuh?!?

>>35113427
Except it has 4 times the loiter time a 10th of the operating cost and is designed for use from short dirt strips meaning they can land, rearm and take of again using FOBs.

I'm hoping that the Scorpion or Wolverine win the contract

>>35114099
When your target is Johnny Jihads downtown terrorist take out a super taco with a targeting pod and 500lb JDAMs makes sense.

File: mk 117 a-1.jpg (143KB, 1600x915px) Image search: [Google]

143KB, 1600x915px

Put me in coach i'm ready to play!

>>35113734
>Because the F-35 will be able to do the A-10's job better
That is the dumbest thing I've heard all week. The F-35 is a sub-par plane better suited as a part of Jeremy Clarkson's garden than as a warfighting plane. It's a jack-of-all-trades, but it can't do jack-fucking-shit.
>>35113835
>no longer adequate for CAS
Bullshit. All of America's enemies have either shit-tier Saudi/China-supplied armor from 1950-1980 or Toyotas with scrap bolted on.
>>35114079
"Just because it carries more ordinance farther, faster, and with more survivability against AAA doesn't mean it's better!" - Tucano fanboy

>>35115614
>The F-35 is a sub-par plane better suited as a part of Jeremy Clarkson's garden than as a warfighting plane. It's a jack-of-all-trades, but it can't do jack-fucking-shit.
The absolute delusion of A-10 fangirls

>>35115682
The F-35 carries smaller, less powerful rounds, fewer of said rounds, can't turn for shit, gives up its stealth advantage if you put too much ordinance on it, has less survivability, costs so much more than the A-10 that it makes people's heads spin, and 4 of them is infinitely less effective than a 2 A-10s with cover from 2 F-22s.

>>35115767
lmao

>>35107878

>Anti-Air SAMs

As opposed to anti-tank SAMs?

>>35108985

NIH
I
H

File: IMG_9900.jpg (201KB, 620x282px) Image search: [Google]

201KB, 620x282px

>>35115896
Never hurts to be prepared

>>35115767
>rounds,
umm I hate to tell you f35 has 18k pound payload and one hell of a great thermal targeting system.
> No need to go low when you can get strike orders from a laser designator at thirty thousand feet from pogs.
>use your advanced thermals to get a good view.
>launch 500 pound bomb..

>>35107926
:^)

Wait what? We're going backwards with technology now?
Why?

>>35115614
>>35115767

Dude, people have already posted why the A-10 isn't optimal in this thread. SAMs and shells can take out an A-10 just as easily as an OA-X, the only edge it has is against heavy machine gun rounds, not an issue when not flying low and slow. OA-X is cheaper (more planes) and has better loiter so CAS coverage when AA is light is just as good. On the flipside the F-35 can do a much better job on SEAD because the main factor there is radar cross section as shown here >>35110697. All told this is clearly the more efficient doctrine.

>>35115614
>All of America's enemies have either shit-tier Saudi/China-supplied armor from 1950-1980 or Toyotas with scrap bolted on.
And in that case, a cheaper COIN plane is better. For any actual real foe, however, a modern fast-mover is what you want. And you can plug your ears and lie to yourself about it all you want, but even the F-16 is a better CAS platform than the A-10, let alone the F-35.

>>35115767
>smaller, less powerful rounds, fewer of said rounds
I can't believe in 2017 people still think an aircraft that does gun runs is a good thing.

>>35115767
>The F-35 carries smaller, less powerful rounds, fewer of said rounds
Well then it sure is a good thing that guns are a non-issue for modern CAS.

>can't turn for shit
Demonstrably wrong, and even then, the A-10 doesn't really have much room to talk there.

>gives up its stealth advantage if you put too much ordinance on it
So clearly the solution is to forgo a stealth aircraft altogether. Gotcha.

>has less survivability
I dunno, being able to sit at altitude hitting targets with impunity while the enemy can't even see you on radar sounds pretty goddamn survivable.

>costs so much more than the A-10 that it makes people's heads spin
Still comparable to everything on the market while actually offering a viable platform, unlike the A-10. And if cost is such a concern, the USAF should retire the A-10 for F-16s.

>and 4 of them is infinitely less effective than a 2 A-10s with cover from 2 F-22s.
No. If there are any air defenses, then you could throw the entire F-22 fleet in as escort and the A-10s still would be useless. In a contested environment, F-35s are your only realistic option for a strike. And if the environment is clean, then there's no reason to not use the F-35 - it carries more ordnance faster and further and has a significantly more advanced avionics suite to make better use of its weapons.

>>35116033

All those planes are more technological advanced than the A-10.

>>35115767
>2 A-10s with cover from 2 F-22s.
So the 2 A-10s get shot down from SAM sites and the 2 F-22s dick around with any enemy air assets because neither of them are protected by Growlers. Cool.

File: 5609829.jpg (2MB, 2353x1266px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2353x1266px

can someone tell me whats wrong with the A -10 ?

>>35116186

Airframe already on it's bones.

>>35116186
She's getting a bit old, and apparently since the US mint keeps sucking our money up by using stupid millennials' gullibility (see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mII9NZ8MMVM for detail), we're low on cash, so tacofags and AR-fanboys keep autistically screeching.

File: okla_I_CASMRBT_001.jpg.53797b621926b51318d52167641aec62.jpg (141KB, 1360x768px) Image search: [Google]

141KB, 1360x768px

>>35116217
>>35116222
why don't they just upgrade it like the "A-164" from ARMA 3 ?

>>35116238

Because the Airframe is already old as shit ffs.

This ain't videogames.

>>35116217
>>35116186
There's also no one manufacturing parts for it anymore, and as pointed out its becoming really obsolete. If you need something that can fly in non-permissive air space you need a strike fighter, if you need something for a low intensity conflict with frequent COIN operations and long loiter times you grab one of those light attack aircraft. There's nothing the A-10 is needed for right now

>>35116217
>>35116222
Many of them have just been given completely new wings, that's basically a reset-to-zero in regards to flight hours/airframe fatigue.

File: knowing.jpg (27KB, 713x684px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 713x684px

>>35110296
>sees an obviously sarcastic comment about the awful nature of our government
>spergs out with big tl;dr post as if sarcasm was just a trick of the liberal agenda
Not the anon you're replying to, but I really, really think you should get tested for autism. I'm not trying to insult you, I genuinely mean that.

Also regarding the content of your post you might want to dial it back a few notches because you're still a bit too crazy for the folks here. Remember, flies and honey, don't shoot yourself in the foot and drive away everyone before they even hear you.

>>35115767
>The F-35 carries smaller, less powerful rounds, fewer of said rounds
I love the fuck out of the A-10 but you are a fucking retard, the 25mm the F-35 carries hits harder and more accurately than the 30mm the A-10 carries.

What we need is a dedicated CAS aircraft with a few little COIN friends that doesn't cost so much to fly and operate. It is possible, but we absolutely need to rip the gun out of the F-35 and put it in something that deserves it.

>>35107926
>Underrated post
That's why they called them "freedom fighters"

>>35110843
>the airforce is too stupid
you mean high level officers are too stupid.

theyre the only ones that have any say, officers above colonel

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

119KB, 1300x505px

If they had any sense at all, they'd just put the OV-10 back into production with modern engines and avionics. The thing did brilliantly everywhere it was used.

>>35118278
Boeing was perfectly capable of offering it, so you should ask them why they felt they couldn't compete.

>>35107412
didn't they already choose the toucan?

>>35116186
got old, didn't got new planes, its expensive, and im pretty sure you don't want to see USAF giving those to Iraqis! are you nuts, those cheap prop planes are supposed to, among other things, to be giving and borrow to locals, you really want to give them the hog?

>>35109367
>I'm willing to bet the Saudis are probably involved.
you mean, the people we just signed a multi-billion dollar arms deal are going to send those arms to known terrorists that are going to then fight us?

that's so fucking stupid but I believe with my entire existence that it will probably happen.

>>35112677
its a shit plane, but lobby to get it is strong.
probably gonna be the winner.
good for the guys who gonna have to pilot it in combat, I s'pose

File: OV10_Bronco_Cal_fire.jpg (117KB, 1032x580px) Image search: [Google]

117KB, 1032x580px

>>35118315
I have a feeling I could already answer that. It's not new, and flashy, and sexy... It's utility, and simple, and that's been going against Boeing's new groove.

>>35116238
air resistance does a number on the airframe of a plane

>>35118324
Nope.

>>35113427
dont you ever get tired of looking stupid?

>>35118433
they had, but then they took back cause some competitors complained about "muh murican made plane".
Embraer wasting time trying to win a rigged game. they will regret all the money they already invested on the US plants, should have sold planes to Venezuela back when they could afford it

>>35118324
No, those were for the Afghan airforce.

>>35111237
>>35111521
*turns on radio*
*YEAHHHHHH YEAAHHHH YEYEYAHHHH IT'S A PARTY IN THE UU SSS AAAAAAAA*

the problem is that none of those planes looks cool and badass enough.
buff those planes a little, will ya?

>>35118455
You mean it was rigged to have Embraer win, despite the AT-6 being developed with USAF involvement for their specific needs.

>>35118500
sure, what ever you want to believe.
I don't care, its not my countrymen who gonna die piloting an AT-6 in middle east.

>>35118500
AT-6 lobby gonna win this.
the only way to the AT-6 NOT winning is if it gets in some gross accident and kills his pilots on the field.or maybe not even that.
I only want to point embraer pump a lot of time and money on it and now they gonna lose it all, and its probably a huge hit on the company on a very bad economic moment

>>35107992
>yeah but the brrrrt has a magical intimidation and psychological effect on all combatants that just isn't there for rockets from space
Well if you mounted stuka sirens on the tucano it could do that too :^)

File: Skyraider_A-1H-J_1969_-_00000033_-_USAF.jpg (147KB, 792x526px) Image search: [Google]

147KB, 792x526px

I'm sure it's been asked and answer but It would make sense to just build a modern Typhoon or Skyraider

>>35118596
>Well if you mounted stuka sirens on the tucano it could do that too :^)
...I kinda want to see that

>>35118315

Because they are the ones backing the Tucano.

>>35118568

Embraer won't suffer shit because they already have a contract with USAF for their FMS program and defense it's not even their main market, it's Comercial and Executive jets.

>>35118609
A mosquito would be better, could get IKEA to make them cheap

>>35116186

Its expensive to operate against goat fuckers who pose zero threat. We don't need to pay thousands of dollars per flight hour for A-10s and F-15s to provide air cover against people who have zero anti air threat. OAX wouldn't be used in high intensity conflict. just counter insurgency shit like Afghanistan and norther Iraq.

>>35116186
It's designed to fight a battle that didn't take place in a war that never happened.

When dealing with real threats the F-35 is much better. For taking out insurgents with rusty AKs the taco is much cheaper, more maintainable, has longer loiter time and can be operated from remote FOBs.

File: weeb_jet.jpg (46KB, 650x487px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 650x487px

>>35108985
>USAF should adopt kawaii F-16

File: Boeing-T-X-side[1].jpg (95KB, 1024x819px) Image search: [Google]

95KB, 1024x819px

>>35119899
>kawaii F-16

M8 that's baby hornet even has the same f404 engine

They seemed pretty happy with the Scorpion

https://theaviationist.com/?p=43509

File: baabaa.jpg (342KB, 1270x1239px) Image search: [Google]

342KB, 1270x1239px

>>35115469
Always been partial to the Corsair
>21st century Black Sheep squadron

>>35119748
A-10's real competetion isn't the F-35 or B1, it's the F-16. A cheaper aircraft that performs the same jobs faster and safer.

>>35120118
I'd love it if it won the inevitable tender, but I sort of doubt it. It's the least mature competitor.

>>35120171
And the F-16 is going to eventually be replaced the F-35. The sad reality is that the A-10 is neither good enough for use in high threat environments or cheap enough for low threat targets.

>>35120123
the Corsair is a wonky looking machine

>>35120123
>>35120372
I would be A-OK if somebody recreated this but bigger and beefier. Then the first squadron can have an obese pirate with her grinning mouth wide-open looming over towelheads with the caption, "FEED ME JIHADIS!"

>>35120872
Also officially requesting a patch design if any drawfags are interested.

Let's have a kickstarter to make it happen, there's still time to win the OA-X. We can do this guys.

>>35122222

File: missiles on a cessna.jpg (64KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

64KB, 640x480px

>>35115469
>Prude me in Couch Zee, I'm Reggie Toupee

>>35119090
I've got some British plywood furniture from my grandparents that I'm pretty sure was made in an ex-Mosquito Factory.

File: 5931102803_dc07158440_b.jpg (117KB, 992x782px) Image search: [Google]

117KB, 992x782px

How about hawker tempest? It's fast by default, has good aerodynamics and is stable in subsonic flight. It also has strong wings for racks.

>>35107412
>Now they're gonna send them to actual fighting. Where you guys think they're gonnna send them? Iraq? Syria? Afghanistan?

thats not what it fucking says

>The U.S. Air Force’s light attack experiment is officially over as of Aug. 30, but it will be months before the service makes a decision on whether to hold a combat demonstration, its top civilian said Thursday.

>>35110296
not weapons, fuck off to /pol/

>>35124005
Because it's a 73 year old relic? Shouldn't be too hard to make something that better fulfills the demand spec today, tech has come a bit since the days when a black and white thumbnail of a TV was cutting edge.

File: 1500582697216.jpg (23KB, 368x250px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 368x250px

>>35115896
Da

>>35118596
Do it

File: 1920763865962.png (712KB, 1022x652px) Image search: [Google]

712KB, 1022x652px

>>35124141

>>35113271

A-10 proved to be too vulnerable in Gulf War once those got over Iraqi republican guard that had adequate supply of modern SAM's. Regular Iraqi units were very limited in their supply of things like Roland SAM. Iraqi stockpiles high tech ammo were scarce after decade of war with Iran. USAF lost couple A-10's and couple more were heavily damaged and immediately started using F-16's and F-111's in that area instead of A-10.

>>35113427
Tucano or similar is supposed to be used against goat herders with no effective air defense, in that kind of environment it does 90% of what A-10 does at fraction of cost.

Honestly in the 70s you can see how it made sense, flying low and putting armor on was the only defense against AA at the time, and they needed the payload and gun to punch through as many soviet tanks as possible in the event they zerg rushed Europe. It's just that now we have LRC fighters that can actually survive doing SEAD, and commonly fight enemies without SAM or even armor.

pls no Super Taco, we can't be caught flying the huehue plane

>>35124401
so lets close the super taco factory in Murica and send all those lazy americunts back to the trailer park

>>35124417
is not like muricans want to work anyway

>>35124029
Newfag, go to Reddit if you don't want to be able to talk about anything.

>>35124424
>implying it was white Americans working there
it employed the huehue's distant relative the Tacoamerican

>>35124465
yeah, to be fair the idea of finding a white american working voluntarily is kinda insane.

>>35111845
>libertarian
Neoliberal all the way, it's what you become when you realize half of real life libertarians live in a communist tier fantasyland but still believe in the core ideals

Support policies grounded in evidence. Maximize the free market unless it is harmful, and then regulate as little as possible. Create inclusive institutions (it's not some sjw phrase, it means the government at all levels represents the constituents, instead of just the rich). Maximize individual liberty unless infringing on others. Etc. Modern neoliberalism basically addresses the problems of old school liberalism and lasseiz-faire capitalism, without, you know, advocating for the violent overthrow of the bourgeise and public ownership of the means of production.

>tfw the Scorpion probably won't win

>>35124481
>be progressive liberal
>want wage slave illegals because white Americans won't work for sub minimum wage
>unironically campaign for a $15 minimum wage at the same time

>>35124669
Really hope it does. It has the most potential.

>10 years ago.
>Was assigned to the same unit as the program office for the T-6.
>Subject of AT-6 comes up.
>The people in the trenches are almost universally against letting Beechcraft have any more federal $ for development.

>>35125366
story?

File: 1353831252333.gif (261KB, 455x527px) Image search: [Google]

261KB, 455x527px

>>35125366
I want to know more
tell me all juicy details

Question for all of you guys saying the oa-x would be vulnerable to sams: would sams be able to lock on to it? It's a propeller plane. And by what i understand, propeller planes generally don't give off enough of a heat signature for missiles to lock on to.

>>35126200
Close your 4chan tab, open google and start educating yourself about missile seekers.

>>35126234
kinda jerk, but not wrong
>>35126200
I will educate you in a more positive way.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surface-to-air_missile
feel free to scroll down to "Guidance systems"

File: 451234123.jpg (410KB, 1171x919px) Image search: [Google]

410KB, 1171x919px

>>35126200
>from 50 years old SA-7 manual
>propeller fags BTFO
Ли-2 is this. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lisunov_Li-2

it seems like every country has given away manpad SAMs like candy in Syria, Iraq, and Yemen, etc.

wouldn't those be able to shoot these down easily?

>>35126825
>>35109339

>>35126807
>SA-2 max altitude
>sub 10k feet

>>35126825
Only if they're below the flight ceiling of the missile.

File: Mwari.jpg (326KB, 1875x1022px) Image search: [Google]

326KB, 1875x1022px

Soon it's time for AHRLAC to shine!

>Not just putting the Skyraider back in service
its ez

>>35125690
>>35125982
Normal procurement bullshit. They pad their production levels to get early delivery credit, while delivering substandard planes with issues and needing rework.

>>35116048
Did you think this was intended for conventional fighting or something?

>>35127087
It's like a downsy, baby Bronco.

It's cute.

File: IMG_0673.jpg (346KB, 1200x857px) Image search: [Google]

346KB, 1200x857px

Cute

File: Scorpion.jpg (93KB, 960x600px) Image search: [Google]

93KB, 960x600px

>>35120260
Ah but the Air Force just loves their jets.
Super Tucano is my baby tho

>>35129170
AT&L is also headed up by the Textron Systems CEO, so that's a thing.

File: An_AC-208_fires_a_Hellfire_at_practice_target.jpg (17KB, 1024x271px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 1024x271px

>>35122574
What kind of Cessna is that? A 208?

File: Dumbo_052.jpg (74KB, 640x427px) Image search: [Google]

74KB, 640x427px

>>35129093

>>35110956
1990s: China air defense bad
2010s: China air defense good

>>35129958
thx for timely response

>>35129958
This made me lol way harder than it should have.

>>35129958
>thinking PRC air defense is good

no

>>35107718
>Hopefully this will lower the costs of the forever war

The exact point of forever war is to make money for corporations that employ American workers that get paychecks and spend them on retail goods to keep more (wageslave) workers employed.

War is the ultimate economic stimulus package. Ask any Machinist/Welder/Toolie why they earn a good wage despite car manufacturing being in an imminent tailspin.

File: China displaying multiple U-2s they shot down.jpg (377KB, 2048x1536px) Image search: [Google]

377KB, 2048x1536px

>>35130151

but they seemed to be able to shoot down multiple american aircraft in the 60s.

Can't we just crank out a shitload of poor quality F-16s and make them bomb trucks?


Like use REALLY cheap airframes, rip out all the electronics, jam in some mexican engines and use all the surplus bits.

Bomb the crap out out of all the sandy countries.

>>35130724
Well, that's sort of what the F-16 is already.

>>35107412
>A FUCKING PROP PLANE
america is doomed

>>35130228
>60s
was stealth even considerable at that point? weren't U2s essentially just gliders at a really high altitude?

>>35130228
U-2's were helpless if you had a missile that could actually reach their altitude.

>>35130724
These planes have lower flight hour costs than even an F-16.

File: IMG_0674.jpg (122KB, 640x426px) Image search: [Google]

122KB, 640x426px

>>35130741
Hope exists

>>35130228

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Cat_Squadron

>>35130757
>was stealth even considerable at that point?

basically no such thing

>weren't U2s essentially just gliders at a really high altitude?

not gliders but yeah, just high flying planes.

>>35130842
I shouldn't have said gliders but lightweight planes.
I'm getting tired, sorry bud

>>35130886
i don't give a fuck homie, it's all good.

>>35130798
Apparently they are gonna sell some of them and are demoing the fuck out of it

>>35115614

>The "F-35 is bad" meme again

I POSTED IT AGAIN GUYS

>>35130842
Welll....

U2s of that era had an anti-radar coating called ironball applied to their undersides. It was ineffective.

The U2 was bigger than most folks give it credit for. It carried a huge camera with miles of film in two counter-rotating drums to keep the CG in a consistent range.

I read "operation overflight" about Francis Gary Powers. The Russkies were able to track every U2 overflight. Mr Powers flight was from Pakistan to Norway, so he was over Soviet airspace for many hours.

>>35107607
Syria is a big hell no not with 12.6 HMG and anit aircraft guns everywhere and everybody else having flooded the country in manpads 2 or 3 years back

>>35115767

Thank anon. I was looking for the most uneducated opinion of the day on /k/, and I finally found it thanks to you. Kudos.

>>35130943
>It was ineffective.

hence

>basically no such thing

>>35116238

because that is fucking dumb. The A-10 is a legend, I will always love BRRRRTTT, but reality is that it is an old plane, they aren't making new ones. Time to retire her with dignity.

>>35130911

>they just designed and built a fighter jet then tried to sell it after they were done

The absolute madmen.

>>35116252
>i-its old so its bad!!
What's wrong with it? Other than the gun not being able to even defeat actual tanks of its day, but that's what rockets and missiles are for.

>>35130775
didnt a couple of U2s get shot down?

>>35107655
>>35107888
Nah, neither. Flown the training variant and we just use the standard foam and reflecty tape pots, both AF and Navy. Also the hud is built into the UFCP (that little green glass in the cockpit shot) so there's no need for helmet hud.

>>35131203
NANONMACHINES SON!

Actually metalurgy. Metal flexes and warps over time. Airframes literally "wear out". Cracks start to appear more and more freqently as the crystalline structure of the airframe is abused. Each heavy load, hard landing, high G, it all flexes and bends the aircraft. Same reason navy ships wear out. Its not the rust, its the Keel.

A-10s though, still have a lot of life left in them. They got new wings very reccently. I am an advocate of removing the gun and replacing it with a M777 howitzer thats been stripped down. Gone are the days of BRRRT, welcome the days of KerplunkBOOM.

GPS guided munitions nigga. its a good day.

>>35119977
The T-X is a F-20 expy, basically.

The F-17 borrowed heavily from the F-5/T-38, and the F-18 is (two generations, legacy and super) an evolution of the F-17. So with the T-X being a downsized, simplified airplane built on the lessons of the SuperHornet, it is really just the evolution of the T-38 come back full circle, and then reconfigured as a single engine aircraft.

File: Brave mujahideen.jpg (8KB, 315x160px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 315x160px

>>35107926
:-) thought the spergs would be out in force on that one but /k/ must be having a high functioning day.

>>35116238
Because that's fucking stupid?

>>35118568
Embraer is pumping out Phenoms, Legacies, and E175s as fast as they can, they wont give a fuck about a couple dozen Super Tacos.

>>35107926
))))

>>35109389
>Tfw the most aethetic thing ever was never fielded
And it's so good...

>>35132327
they weren't terrorists until 9-11 goy

>>35133090
Chinese is raping them in all markets and US is not helping at all.
again

>>35131720
>plane mounted howitzer
Disregarding for a moment how fucking amazing that sounds, would it even work? They already have issues with the recoil on the GAU-8, surely a 155mm would be worse?

>>35133936
I have yet to see a Chinese made plane of any type fly in, and I've seen a KMAX, EMARSS, L-39, F-4U, DC-3, and all sorts of other shit. I see at least ten Brazillian jets a day fly in, and not a single Ching Chong Industries Potato.