In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
Options
USAF bringing back the Prop....
Cubslover
Member Posts: 18,601 ✭✭
How do you feel about it? Seeing/hearing a few of these loaded for bear, coming in at 200' off the deck would be awesome, IMO.
Half of the lives they tell about me aren't true.
Comments
is the crew protected by the titanium bathtub like in the A-10? why is there a crew on a ground attack? what kind of defensive countermeasures does it have?
Likely NOT in a bathtub. Supposedly trading light weight, quick attack, and cheap maintenance.
Also, for sheer volumes of capable machines.
Why put TWO people at risk? What can it do better than the A-10?
For decades people who have studied close air support have pointed out that using modern 4th and 5th generation fighter/bomber jets to do close air support is just silly and incredibly expensive. In the conflicts the American military and many other armed forces have been in over the past few decades involve very loosely organized and poorly equipped non-state actors. It's a bunch of guys with AK47's and PKM's. Maybe they have an old Bofors gun or two. If you're three miles up, you don't have anything to worry about period.
But the US military insists upon using F16s and F15s and F18s to do close air support, at an immediate cost of about $1 - $2 million dollars per air strike considering fuel, inflight refueling, and maintenance. The truly outlandish costs are coming due now, though, after decades of war when all these pricey planes have all these hours on them and are effectively worn out. They will need to be replaced, and the military wants the F22 and JSF to replace them. The taxpayer is going to get stuck with probably a TRILLION dollar bill.
Or we could have used the glorified Sandy from Vietnam, which is dirt cheap, costs maybe $2,000 an hour to fly, and provides all the protection a pilot needs. Oh, and with new targeting pods and very cheap updates, it can do everything required of it.
Well, no it can't. A picture of the pilot standing in front of it can't get the pilot laid in some San Diego bar. Nothing sexy about flying a Sky Raider in 2017. Except it makes massive financial and military sense.
https://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/the-amazing-ov-10-bronco-was-never-allowed-to-meet-its-1695837367
One of the comebacks from the evolution deniers is that if it were true, why do we still have apes.
If an organism or machine is well suited to survive or fulfill a function, it doesn't automatically disappear when a new and improved model comes along.
A mountain man today could survive just as easily with a Hawkins as he could with a Winchester.
Personally I think using the F-35 for CAS is a bunch of BS. Props are the way to go for loiter time and accuracy in weapon delivery.
I think the OV-10 Bronco would be a better choice.
https://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/the-amazing-ov-10-bronco-was-never-allowed-to-meet-its-1695837367
Agree, they took a lot of fire in VN and made it home. Saw those Bird at Camp Pendelton and it took a lot of proper patchwork to get them air Worthy again. Lots of holes were covered in beer cans.
I was assigned to VMO-2 for a while.
The OV-10 was not designed for attack. It was a pure Forward Air Control plane - and it was limited even in that role. It was underpowered, and could be flown either with external fuel tanks to give more than short loiter time OR a limited number of ordnance options. So, you could either carry weapons and not have the fuel to deliver them, or carry the fuel but nothing to deliver. And it was useless at night due to cockpit reflections.
Should be inexpensive, but looks like it could be brought down by well aimed machinegun or light AA artillery fire. Equipping it with the electronics for stand-off weapons would bring protect the pilot, but then it becomes an expensive replacement for the Predator, albeit a much faster and more maneuverable one.
If we see ourselves involved in combat operations against non-state entities for a sufficient time to justify the development and deployment costs, probably not a bad idea. If, however, our plan is to eventually remove ourselves from patrolling the wastelands of humanity, maybe not so much.
Brad Steele
The Embraer EMB 314 Super Tucano, they are made in Brazil I believe.
I believe the Afghan AF has about 20 of them.
These are good platforms for CAS. They have a long loiter time and can operate in a permissive theater where we have total Air Superiority.
The two crew layout seems to work well in Attack helicopters so I assume they brought that to these AC. Not sure about protecting for the pilot but Most Combat AC are hardened against 12.7mm in the crucial areas.
The A-10 is a good CAS AC but they are getting long in the totth and are expensive to operate. They fill in well as CAS but they were truly built to be tank busters against the USSR.
They are already using a similar Aircraft in Afghanistan.
The Embraer EMB 314 Super Tucano, they are made in Brazil I believe.
I believe the Afghan AF has about 20 of them.
These are good platforms for CAS. They have a long loiter time and can operate in a permissive theater where we have total Air Superiority.
The two crew layout seems to work well in Attack helicopters so I assume they brought that to these AC. Not sure about protecting for the pilot but Most Combat AC are hardened against 12.7mm in the crucial areas.
The A-10 is a good CAS AC but they are getting long in the totth and are expensive to operate. They fill in well as CAS but they were truly built to be tank busters against the USSR.
The Air Force where I live has 25 of the Embraer EMB 314 Super Tucano purchased directly from Brazil.
Used in actual war against the Communist Gorilla fighters. Their A10 Broncos were retired a while back.
Cost for an F15 per hour is $40,000, Super Tucano $1,000. Makes the case for having a "fleet" of Super Tucano's vrs. 1/2 of an F15. [:D]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embraer_EMB_314_Super_Tucano
The plane pictured, or similar, would be fine for light attack in permissive environments.
The OV-10 was not designed for attack. It was a pure Forward Air Control plane - and it was limited even in that role. It was underpowered, and could be flown either with external fuel tanks to give more than short loiter time OR a limited number of ordnance options. So, you could either carry weapons and not have the fuel to deliver them, or carry the fuel but nothing to deliver. And it was useless at night due to cockpit reflections.
Was it 'imagined' by the same folk that gave us the B-57 Hustler which had the same 'wish list'?
Hell just bring back the old Douglas Skyraider built like a tank and takes a licken and keeps on tickin.
That is basically what they are doing but with modern avionics and computer stuff. Plus its smaller and cheaper to build.
The A1A was a hell of a bird but they are long gone now.
So it would save tons in maintenance, building costs, fuel, and training time.
For those who say its a bad performer have never flown in one. They are capable of flying in excess of 300 nautical miles per hour (to the point they are equipped with air brakes) Rates of Climb in excess of 4000fps at low altitude are easily accomplished. It is also equipped with zero, zero martin baker ejection seats and the crew has to wear G-suits as the thing can pull in excess of 7G's without exceeding airframe limitations.
Obviously it is payload limited compared to aircraft such as the A-10, however given the proven design and preferred use of smart weapons that require less punch to get the job done (i.e. think a modern day 9mm JHP in comparison to todays smart bombs) it doesn't really need to carry as much ordnance for a single CAS mission.
I'm not saying its our next greatest CAS aircraft. I'm just saying there is a problem that this aircraft could be a solution to.
Eyes in the sky that can bring the hammer at any time.
The guys on the ground surely appreciate that.