User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 1/31/2016 12:41:17 PM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
What I think what might be great, is to have a drone the size of an attack aircraft from WW2, that is controllable by a Company Commander or probably like a RTO guy that follows him around. Make that aircraft a drone and armed with guided missiles and maybe a .50 cal gun to hit or harass the enemy from on-high. You wouldn't need to train pilots which are very expensive to train, and if you lose an aircraft it's not a big loss. No. Drones do not replace a pilot, especially with a two man crew. Soda straws are not MK I eyeballs and latency is not your friend when operating danger close. CAS is the last place for unmanned. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/31/2016 12:42:47 PM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The AC-130 is really better at CAS. But it's huge, expensive, and flies with a huge crew. For an A-10 replacement I agree with Sylvan. While less sexy a Super Tucano or similar aircraft is what we have needed. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Can someone explain the CAS mission of the Spectre vs A-10? Wouldn't the Spectre fill the current role better, or is it not enough firepower? The AC-130 is really better at CAS. But it's huge, expensive, and flies with a huge crew. For an A-10 replacement I agree with Sylvan. While less sexy a Super Tucano or similar aircraft is what we have needed. There are cheaper AC options. Casa 295 (or 235) from Jordan being an example AC-130 is stupidly expensive 15E radar on the U for example. Harvest HAWK shows how you can get 90% of the benefit at 10% of the cost. We have 400 C-130s. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/31/2016 12:43:54 PM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
No. Drones do not replace a pilot, especially with a two man crew. Soda straws are not MK I eyeballs and latency is not your friend when operating danger close. CAS is the last place for unmanned. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
What I think what might be great, is to have a drone the size of an attack aircraft from WW2, that is controllable by a Company Commander or probably like a RTO guy that follows him around. Make that aircraft a drone and armed with guided missiles and maybe a .50 cal gun to hit or harass the enemy from on-high. You wouldn't need to train pilots which are very expensive to train, and if you lose an aircraft it's not a big loss. No. Drones do not replace a pilot, especially with a two man crew. Soda straws are not MK I eyeballs and latency is not your friend when operating danger close. CAS is the last place for unmanned. People keep forgetting that the Predator is an ISR platform on which they strapped a couple of missiles so that they could at least do something if they had to. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/31/2016 12:49:07 PM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
There are cheaper AC options. Casa 295 (or 235) from Jordan being an example AC-130 is stupidly expensive 15E radar on the U for example. Harvest HAWK shows how you can get 90% of the benefit at 10% of the cost. We have 400 C-130s. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Can someone explain the CAS mission of the Spectre vs A-10? Wouldn't the Spectre fill the current role better, or is it not enough firepower? The AC-130 is really better at CAS. But it's huge, expensive, and flies with a huge crew. For an A-10 replacement I agree with Sylvan. While less sexy a Super Tucano or similar aircraft is what we have needed. There are cheaper AC options. Casa 295 (or 235) from Jordan being an example AC-130 is stupidly expensive 15E radar on the U for example. Harvest HAWK shows how you can get 90% of the benefit at 10% of the cost. We have 400 C-130s. Each Harvest HAWK kit costs about $22M (on top of a $71M airframe) and requires an aircrew of at least four. A Super Tucano costs at worst $14M each and two aircrew. And this is of course ignoring the huge OPEX cost difference between the two. I'm not sure we can afford that level of efficiency on a 400 jet fleet. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/31/2016 12:51:35 PM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted: No. Drones do not replace a pilot, especially with a two man crew. Soda straws are not MK I eyeballs and latency is not your friend when operating danger close. CAS is the last place for unmanned. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: What I think what might be great, is to have a drone the size of an attack aircraft from WW2, that is controllable by a Company Commander or probably like a RTO guy that follows him around. Make that aircraft a drone and armed with guided missiles and maybe a .50 cal gun to hit or harass the enemy from on-high. You wouldn't need to train pilots which are very expensive to train, and if you lose an aircraft it's not a big loss. No. Drones do not replace a pilot, especially with a two man crew. Soda straws are not MK I eyeballs and latency is not your friend when operating danger close. CAS is the last place for unmanned. Hey, stop messing with my beer drunkin' 11% ABV dream I'm having right now. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/31/2016 12:54:50 PM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Each Harvest HAWK kit costs about $22M (on top of a $71M airframe) and requires an aircrew of at least four. A Super Tucano costs at worst $14M each and two aircrew. And this is of course ignoring the huge OPEX cost difference between the two. I'm not sure we can afford that level of efficiency on a 400 jet fleet. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Can someone explain the CAS mission of the Spectre vs A-10? Wouldn't the Spectre fill the current role better, or is it not enough firepower? The AC-130 is really better at CAS. But it's huge, expensive, and flies with a huge crew. For an A-10 replacement I agree with Sylvan. While less sexy a Super Tucano or similar aircraft is what we have needed. There are cheaper AC options. Casa 295 (or 235) from Jordan being an example AC-130 is stupidly expensive 15E radar on the U for example. Harvest HAWK shows how you can get 90% of the benefit at 10% of the cost. We have 400 C-130s. Each Harvest HAWK kit costs about $22M (on top of a $71M airframe) and requires an aircrew of at least four. A Super Tucano costs at worst $14M each and two aircrew. And this is of course ignoring the huge OPEX cost difference between the two. I'm not sure we can afford that level of efficiency on a 400 jet fleet. Not suggesting every platform receive it. But you would at least have a functional C-130 when not dropping bombs on morons and we already have the crews and pilots. Our -130 fleet is horribly underutilized as it is (which is why the AF keeps trying to cut squadrons) |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/31/2016 12:58:07 PM EDT
[#7]
LAAR would also make a dandy escort for V-22s as well.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/31/2016 1:00:53 PM EDT
[#8]
Bring back the S-3 Viking, tear out the ASW gear and refit. I did like the hoover
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/31/2016 1:02:02 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Not suggesting every platform receive it. But you would at least have a functional C-130 when not dropping bombs on morons and we already have the crews and pilots. Our -130 fleet is horribly underutilized as it is (which is why the AF keeps trying to cut squadrons) Can't you automate some of the crew's job in a AC130? Thus making it possible for more aircraft? I understand they require alot of logistics. It's a fucking god damned shame only cool guys really get to utilize them, versus the guys who go out on patrol and get shot at EVERY FUCKING DAY. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/31/2016 1:02:35 PM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted: We don't need to punch Soviet armor. Ammo weight isn't the issue, the delivery system is the pig on the A10. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: We need a low tech solution here, no need for an entirely stealth aircraft at 200 million per copy to beat up on insurgents. Emphasis long loiter time, pilot survivability, and BRRRRRRRRT-ability. Integrate modern sensors and some of the low observability lessons from other aircradt to improve manpad survivability. Call it a day and get them out to our guys ASAP. Step 1: get rid of the cannon You are basically giving our men a emasculated plane.  #nomoreemasculatedplanes  Annnnnd that's where future planning goes into the trash. Designing a plane with a singular purpose of "Just providing CAS in COIN operations" is a surefire way to have it slated when we actually get into a shooting war. What you want is a plane that can handle COIN and High Intensity Conflicts. The removal of the gun will hurt it when we do get into a legitimate war with another nation. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/31/2016 1:07:41 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Annnnnd that's where future planning goes into the trash. Designing a plane with a singular purpose of "Just providing CAS in COIN operations" is a surefire way to have it slated when we actually get into a shooting war. What you want is a plane that can handle COIN and High Intensity Conflicts. The removal of the gun will hurt it when we do get into a legitimate war with another nation. The USAF may choose not to agree, but we've been fighting LIC for over half our countries history, and it isn't going away any time soon. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/31/2016 1:11:55 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The USAF may choose not to agree, but we've been fighting LIC for over half our countries history, and it isn't going away any time soon. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Annnnnd that's where future planning goes into the trash. Designing a plane with a singular purpose of "Just providing CAS in COIN operations" is a surefire way to have it slated when we actually get into a shooting war. What you want is a plane that can handle COIN and High Intensity Conflicts. The removal of the gun will hurt it when we do get into a legitimate war with another nation. The USAF may choose not to agree, but we've been fighting LIC for over half our countries history, and it isn't going away any time soon. I agree alot that we're likely to not face a near-peer enemy because of the nuke equation. But it's foolish to rule that out. We've been bit in the ass a whole bunch of times in the past because of the "that will never happen, so we don't need that!", mentality. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/31/2016 1:15:29 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
That and battleships will make America great again! Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
How about a twin fuselage A-10 with 2 30mm guns.  That and battleships will make America great again! we still have ammo for the Battleships. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/31/2016 1:15:31 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Annnnnd that's where future planning goes into the trash. Designing a plane with a singular purpose of "Just providing CAS in COIN operations" is a surefire way to have it slated when we actually get into a shooting war. What you want is a plane that can handle COIN and High Intensity Conflicts. The removal of the gun will hurt it when we do get into a legitimate war with another nation. What is the GAU-8 going to be used against in a high intensity conflict with a near peer state? |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/31/2016 1:21:02 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Cessna scorpion, this is what they want to replace the A10 http://i65.tinypic.com/bge5ns.jpg Looks like the Japanese stealth fighter. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/31/2016 1:26:59 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted: What is the GAU-8 going to be used against in a high intensity conflict with a near peer state? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Annnnnd that's where future planning goes into the trash. Designing a plane with a singular purpose of "Just providing CAS in COIN operations" is a surefire way to have it slated when we actually get into a shooting war. What you want is a plane that can handle COIN and High Intensity Conflicts. The removal of the gun will hurt it when we do get into a legitimate war with another nation. What is the GAU-8 going to be used against in a high intensity conflict with a near peer state? Useful for knocking out tanks, damaging strategic targets, etc etc. The GAU-8 is still a very capable system, it can shred Cold War era tanks. In the future, thanks to modern designs in cartridges should we decide to build a newer or better version, it can still put a serious hurt on modern armor. It probably won't turn armor into Swiss cheese, but it will knock it out of commission, that means more non-combat capable tanks for our enemy. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/31/2016 2:48:46 PM EDT
[#17]
Should we, speaking hypothetically, start to role out an A-10 replacement AND a non-peer CAS platform? A lot of people here are right, we don't need to spend $10000/hr aircraft to be tasked with zooming in on a mud hut and killing a goat fucker.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/31/2016 2:55:05 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote Historysmexy 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/31/2016 2:56:02 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I stopped reading when I saw McSally's name. One of the worst officers I have ever met in my career. Is he wrong though in what he is talking about regarding this specific issue? |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/31/2016 3:04:09 PM EDT
[#20]
What improvements are possible? The present plane seems very capable.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/31/2016 3:11:19 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I'm telling you, replace the 30mm with autoloading L7 105mm cannons.  Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: How about a twin fuselage A-10 with 2 30mm guns. I'm telling you, replace the 30mm with autoloading L7 105mm cannons. On turrets. Air battleship. AB-10. Or maybe that should be AB-210 |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/31/2016 3:16:45 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted: You are basically giving our men a emasculated plane. #nomoreemasculatedplanes Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: We need a low tech solution here, no need for an entirely stealth aircraft at 200 million per copy to beat up on insurgents. Emphasis long loiter time, pilot survivability, and BRRRRRRRRT-ability. Integrate modern sensors and some of the low observability lessons from other aircradt to improve manpad survivability. Call it a day and get them out to our guys ASAP. Step 1: get rid of the cannon You are basically giving our men a emasculated plane. #nomoreemasculatedplanes With today's targeting and guidance, I wonder if kill ratio and kills per sortie would go up without the gun. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/31/2016 3:18:56 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
We need new stuff that is decades away and will cost trillions to make, preferentially in our districts. Signed, Congress. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/31/2016 3:21:40 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
If you got rid of the cannon, it could carry many more missiles and bombs. With today's targeting and guidance, I wonder if kill ratio and kills per sortie would go up without the gun. Heck, if you replaced the GAU-8 with an M61 you would save almost 3500 pounds. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/31/2016 3:25:15 PM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
We need a low tech solution here, no need for an entirely stealth aircraft at 200 million per copy to beat up on insurgents. Emphasis long loiter time, pilot survivability, and BRRRRRRRRT-ability. Integrate modern sensors and some of the low observability lessons from other aircradt to improve manpad survivability. Call it a day and get them out to our guys ASAP. We are 14 years into a war where we have desperately needed this widespread capability. Only a corrupt and completely inept organization could be so incompetent for so long. I have no faith at this point that common sense will ever prevail. We will probably have another stealth bomber, and three new aircraft carriers before we arm any cheap low and slow aircraft that would be used daily in ongoing ops. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/31/2016 3:29:43 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
And you'd get raped in a war with China or Russia with that aircraft mix. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
If I ran the budget there would be 4000 Warthogs in the air and 8000 F-16's. All newer planes would be discontinued. Every new plane planned since these were invented seems to be more of a star wars fantasy than a financially responsible fighting machine. And you'd get raped in a war with China or Russia with that aircraft mix. So we are planning on getting in a major combat operation against Russian and Chinese forces? |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/31/2016 3:32:02 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So we are planning on getting in a major combat operation against Russian and Chinese forces? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
If I ran the budget there would be 4000 Warthogs in the air and 8000 F-16's. All newer planes would be discontinued. Every new plane planned since these were invented seems to be more of a star wars fantasy than a financially responsible fighting machine. And you'd get raped in a war with China or Russia with that aircraft mix. So we are planning on getting in a major combat operation against Russian and Chinese forces? We should be to avoid having to. But to be fair not 100% of our aircraft need to be for that fight, just like 100% of the fleet needs to be for a low intensity fight. But at the cost per hour of our high intensity aircraft we could by and operate low speed aircraft and give better service to the guys on the ground. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/31/2016 3:37:03 PM EDT
[#28]
I like CAS threads.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/31/2016 3:37:40 PM EDT
[#29]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/31/2016 3:42:38 PM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Annnnnd that's where future planning goes into the trash. Designing a plane with a singular purpose of "Just providing CAS in COIN operations" is a surefire way to have it slated when we actually get into a shooting war. What you want is a plane that can handle COIN and High Intensity Conflicts. The removal of the gun will hurt it when we do get into a legitimate war with another nation. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
We need a low tech solution here, no need for an entirely stealth aircraft at 200 million per copy to beat up on insurgents. Emphasis long loiter time, pilot survivability, and BRRRRRRRRT-ability. Integrate modern sensors and some of the low observability lessons from other aircradt to improve manpad survivability. Call it a day and get them out to our guys ASAP. Step 1: get rid of the cannon You are basically giving our men a emasculated plane.
#nomoreemasculatedplanes
Annnnnd that's where future planning goes into the trash. Designing a plane with a singular purpose of "Just providing CAS in COIN operations" is a surefire way to have it slated when we actually get into a shooting war. What you want is a plane that can handle COIN and High Intensity Conflicts. The removal of the gun will hurt it when we do get into a legitimate war with another nation. Right. Single mission planes are only ok when it's a stealth fighter, or bomber, or cargo, or anything other than CAS. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/31/2016 3:43:06 PM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I like CAS threads. He best thing you can say is that unlike at JPME, you don't have to sit through 26 hours of a USAF Amway presentation. Here, they just drop an appeal to their own authority, an ad homeniem on our collective intellect and then wander off. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/31/2016 3:43:07 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Looks like the Japanese stealth fighter. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Cessna scorpion, this is what they want to replace the A10 http://i65.tinypic.com/bge5ns.jpg Looks like the Japanese stealth fighter. Looks like an Alpha Jet raped a Fouga Magister ! |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/31/2016 3:43:35 PM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
And you'd get raped in a war with China or Russia with that aircraft mix. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
If I ran the budget there would be 4000 Warthogs in the air and 8000 F-16's. All newer planes would be discontinued. Every new plane planned since these were invented seems to be more of a star wars fantasy than a financially responsible fighting machine. And you'd get raped in a war with China or Russia with that aircraft mix. Not at those numbers |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/31/2016 3:44:40 PM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
No. Drones do not replace an fires/maneuver qualified aerial observer. Soda straws are not MK I eyeballs and latency is not your friend when operating danger close. CAS is the last place for unmanned. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
What I think what might be great, is to have a drone the size of an attack aircraft from WW2, that is controllable by a Company Commander or probably like a RTO guy that follows him around. Make that aircraft a drone and armed with guided missiles and maybe a .50 cal gun to hit or harass the enemy from on-high. You wouldn't need to train pilots which are very expensive to train, and if you lose an aircraft it's not a big loss. No. Drones do not replace an fires/maneuver qualified aerial observer. Soda straws are not MK I eyeballs and latency is not your friend when operating danger close. CAS is the last place for unmanned. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/31/2016 3:46:17 PM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Not at those numbers Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
If I ran the budget there would be 4000 Warthogs in the air and 8000 F-16's. All newer planes would be discontinued. Every new plane planned since these were invented seems to be more of a star wars fantasy than a financially responsible fighting machine. And you'd get raped in a war with China or Russia with that aircraft mix. Not at those numbers Where exactly do we place those aircraft in our mythical great power war? Within range of their highly effective SRBM/IRBM forces or within then? |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/31/2016 4:09:15 PM EDT
[#36]
The pilots already train in a turboprop, the Texan, so buy an appropriate turboprop if the at-6 isn't the one. Then use it for initial training like always and have more training for coin/cas.
It could be done with relative ease if the powers that be really wanted it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/31/2016 4:56:29 PM EDT
[#37]
Quit saying Tucano. Tucanos are not an A10 replacement in anyway.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/31/2016 4:59:15 PM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
IN for responses from actual Hog pilots....yeah, im one of em. In before the cas expert Sylvan also  
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/31/2016 5:02:07 PM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quit saying Tucano. Tucanos are not an A10 replacement in anyway. Well the AT-6B can carry Hellfires and Mavericks, so it kind it is.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/31/2016 5:02:18 PM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
  Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
We already have it. It's called the F-35. Yeah, they're going to task a multi-gazillion dollar plane to do CAS......and risk it being shot down?......It would chopped up like a 57 Chevy left overnight in Harlem, and on its ways to Russia/China/Iran for reverse engineering before his wingman returned back to base. Even if it's not shot down, stray AK-47 fire would damage its precious stealth shell and cause it to be off-line for months of repair. Nice allocation of assets |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/31/2016 5:02:34 PM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quit saying Tucano. Tucanos are not an A10 replacement in anyway. We are discussing replacing existing capabilities with cheaper and better options for the required mission. Just because the A10 exists, and has capabilities that are somewhat useful, doesn't mean we need an exact replacement of all those capabilities. People have an emotional attachment to the gun. That is just stupid. That gun is far from the optimal weapon on the modern battlefield. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/31/2016 5:06:54 PM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
We already have it. It's called the F-35. it lacks the loiter and the gun and the bomb load they do need a specific CAS platform, a modern A-10 that is survivable in a modern threat envelope. I.e. just add some PT belts to the A-10 and call it good. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/31/2016 5:20:13 PM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
would you need refueling with a prop? pilot endurance would be a bigger issue than aircraft endurance for these missions. Ferry loadout would probably be over 10 hours. altitude needs to be above manpad range (16-20K AGL). Minimizing fuel consumption both for endurance and logistics reasons, STOL and rough field capability would trump. Enough power is enough. MOOOOOOOOORE doesn't always apply. If you acknowledge that there will never be CAS in the presence of IADS (which is current US doctrine and practice). This ain't for killing T62s in Poland and Czechoslovakia. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Cessna scorpion, this is what they want to replace the A10 Ya know, an updated A-37 would be a very capable and inexpensive plane to make and fly. why jets over props? Greater thrust to weight, range, service ceiling (altitude), etc, and so on. And where would you put UARRSI for air refueling on single engine prop acft. would you need refueling with a prop? pilot endurance would be a bigger issue than aircraft endurance for these missions. Ferry loadout would probably be over 10 hours. altitude needs to be above manpad range (16-20K AGL). Minimizing fuel consumption both for endurance and logistics reasons, STOL and rough field capability would trump. Enough power is enough. MOOOOOOOOORE doesn't always apply. If you acknowledge that there will never be CAS in the presence of IADS (which is current US doctrine and practice). This ain't for killing T62s in Poland and Czechoslovakia. So are you suggesting some sort of FOB airfield type thing? Cause props may be efficient and get you loiter, but they've got to get there at some point. Jets cover ground faster, so fewer airfields. I'd assume that defending an airbase takes a bit of effort and personnel too. So more convoys and such. And power is good. Because power makes speed and altitude. Which are also good. Edited. Tucano is faster than I thought and A-10 is a bit slower. I suppose it's up to someone in the know to tell us how fast each is in a real world |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/31/2016 5:23:59 PM EDT
[#44]
The Super Tucano has a cult like fanboy following on ARF.com which escapes rational thought. It is in no way as effective as anA10. Why people even have the misguided idea its a modern A1 Skyraider blows my mind . The A1H had way more in common with the A10 than it does with a Tucano. The Ability to carry huge weapons payloads and loiter for a long time, take hits and stay operational made the Skyraider the awesome platform it was . The military does not need a plane that can't perform the job, It needs a modern equivalent that can do as well or better. At a minimum the military is intent on retiring the A10 versus building new ones, then they need a modern A1H or Supertweet. Either aircraft are vastly superior to a Tucano for CAS.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/31/2016 5:27:51 PM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
We are discussing replacing existing capabilities with cheaper and better options for the required mission. Just because the A10 exists, and has capabilities that are somewhat useful, doesn't mean we need an exact replacement of all those capabilities. People have an emotional attachment to the gun. That is just stupid. That gun is far from the optimal weapon on the modern battlefield. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quit saying Tucano. Tucanos are not an A10 replacement in anyway. We are discussing replacing existing capabilities with cheaper and better options for the required mission. Just because the A10 exists, and has capabilities that are somewhat useful, doesn't mean we need an exact replacement of all those capabilities. People have an emotional attachment to the gun. That is just stupid. That gun is far from the optimal weapon on the modern battlefield. We were talking about a replacement. And that was never clearly defined. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/31/2016 5:31:17 PM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The Super Tucano has a cult like fanboy following on ARF.com which escapes rational thought. It is in no way as effective as anA10. Why people even have the misguided idea its a modern A1 Skyraider blows my mind . The A1H had way more in common with the A10 than it does with a Tucano. The Ability to carry huge weapons payloads and loiter for a long time, take hits and stay operational made the Skyraider the awesome platform it was . The military does not need a plane that can't perform the job, It needs a modern equivalent that can do as well or better. At a minimum the military is intent on retiring the A10 versus building new ones, then they need a modern A1H or Supertweet. Either aircraft are vastly superior to a Tucano for CAS. Lets define the mission and the requirements, then we can pick the airframe. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/31/2016 5:36:25 PM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The Super Tucano has a cult like fanboy following on ARF.com which escapes rational thought. It is in no way as effective as anA10. Why people even have the misguided idea its a modern A1 Skyraider blows my mind . The A1H had way more in common with the A10 than it does with a Tucano. The Ability to carry huge weapons payloads and loiter for a long time, take hits and stay operational made the Skyraider the awesome platform it was . The military does not need a plane that can't perform the job, It needs a modern equivalent that can do as well or better. At a minimum the military is intent on retiring the A10 versus building new ones, then they need a modern A1H or Supertweet. Either aircraft are vastly superior to a Tucano for CAS. It's funny you are touting the A-37 when it has a lower hardpoint capacity, less endurance than an A-29, and wasn't particularly armored. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/31/2016 5:37:16 PM EDT
[#48]
We need more A-10s, new ones, with new tech. I can not fathom this being a hard task to accomplish... They'll fuck it up like they always do, but I would love to see the same A-10 just modernized without screwing with its badassness as it is now. I love the A10. if I could have been a pilot- I'd beg for that one. So cool.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/31/2016 6:53:24 PM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It's funny you are touting the A-37 when it has a lower hardpoint capacity, less endurance than an A-29, and wasn't particularly armored. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
The Super Tucano has a cult like fanboy following on ARF.com which escapes rational thought. It is in no way as effective as anA10. Why people even have the misguided idea its a modern A1 Skyraider blows my mind . The A1H had way more in common with the A10 than it does with a Tucano. The Ability to carry huge weapons payloads and loiter for a long time, take hits and stay operational made the Skyraider the awesome platform it was . The military does not need a plane that can't perform the job, It needs a modern equivalent that can do as well or better. At a minimum the military is intent on retiring the A10 versus building new ones, then they need a modern A1H or Supertweet. Either aircraft are vastly superior to a Tucano for CAS. It's funny you are touting the A-37 when it has a lower hardpoint capacity, less endurance than an A-29, and wasn't particularly armored. It was highly praised for its ability in the CAS role , and has the record to go with it. Tucano not so much, why people have a love affair with the little plane is beyond me. We have fielded far better and more capable aircraft even before the adoption of the A10 |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/31/2016 6:55:37 PM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The Super Tucano has a cult like fanboy following on ARF.com which escapes rational thought. It is in no way as effective as anA10. Why people even have the misguided idea its a modern A1 Skyraider blows my mind . The A1H had way more in common with the A10 than it does with a Tucano. The Ability to carry huge weapons payloads and loiter for a long time, take hits and stay operational made the Skyraider the awesome platform it was . The military does not need a plane that can't perform the job, It needs a modern equivalent that can do as well or better. At a minimum the military is intent on retiring the A10 versus building new ones, then they need a modern A1H or Supertweet. Either aircraft are vastly superior to a Tucano for CAS. Ok, then you tell me about Air Land Battle. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
