Why don't more countries operate the best value attack and reconnaissance aircraft in the world?
Rich countries buy better planes.
Poor countries get subsides from rich countries to buy better planes.
>>28381549
You mean the predator drone?
>>28381733
They're god tier CAS for COIN operations though.
>best attack aircraft
>not an apache
>>28381746
>Rich countries buy better planes.
>>28381549
> Attack
Can be penetrated by small arms fire
> Reconaissance
What can they do that any helo can't?
Tucano shills are the worst I swear on me mum
They really aren't that bad of an aircraft...they just aren't good either.
>>28381767
You chose to include the F-35 in there to deliberately trigger me, didn't you?
>>28381763
>top spec Apache $35.5M
>top spec Super Tucano $14M
Hue pls go and stay go
>>28381549
The Super Toucan is a cool concept and a cool plane, but it can't complete with jet fighters.
>>28381812
I consider you a retard if you are triggered by someone calling the F-35 a good plane.
>>28381549
>the best value attack and reconnaissance aircraft in the world?
Hello, I heard you wanted somebody dead?
>>28381549
They could do similar thing to cheaper prop trainer aircraft (KT-1, PC-9, etc)
>>28381903
It's not for the money.
>>28381746
when will this meme end?
the super tucano only makes sense in real low intensity conflicts. one was shot down by a .50 cal, these can only go into extremely permissive airspace.
>>28381887
It was never meant to compete with jets.
>>28381989
E B I N M A Y M A Y M 8
B
I
N
M
A
Y
M
A
Y
M
8
:^)
>age of jet fighters
>prop plane
Wat?
If we are going all out, let's
>>28381828
>better gear costs more
No shit.
>>28382018
>It was never meant to compete with jets.
And that's a real problem. If you don't care about Air-to-Air, then it perhaps makes more sense to just buy Reapers. Its about the same price, but it is a more versatile platform. Of course, the Toucan is more interesting in a visceral sense, but the Reaper seems to make more sense where $$$ are concerned.
>>28381989
>It's not for the money.
There are some things in life where paying extra to get the better quality product is more important than getting the best deal, and air superiority is one of them.
>>28381989
It actually is.
>>28382078
Fair enough, but the Super Tucano was developed and adopted prior to the introduction of the reaper. Also, it works well for what it was designed to do: patrol the region around the Amazon basin, light ground attack and light air interdiction. I don't think you can really ask any more out of the platform.
>>28382159
It was meant for more police action than actual warfare.
>>28381549
>best value attack and reconnaissance aircraft
That's not a chinese reaper knock-off drone in the picture.
>>28382002
And an F35 would withstand a burst from a 50 cal? No...
>>28382183
I got so triggered by your stupidity that I switched browsers just to reply because I'm having issues posting in Chrome.
You are missing the point entirely, an F35 wouldn't get hit by a burst of .50 because it doesn't need to fly low or slow.
>>28382183
>And an F35 would withstand a burst from a 50 cal? No...
The difference is that the F-35 can fly high and fast enough that .50 caliber rounds would never be an issue.
>>28382183
I don't think you understand what you're talking about...
>>28381549
Because if your enemy has any sort of air defense, said 'best value' will get eaten alive. For example, even this 40 year old Chinese MiG-21 knock-off would make short work of it.
>>28381767
When will the stealth low & slow CAS plane be developed?
>>28381549
This thread has me curious: does the Tucano have ANY real advantage over the Reaper? Apparently, the A-29 has been very effective in Colombia. Would the Reaper have done better in the same setting?
>>28382623
Probably significant advantage with being able to fly real low, and eyeball shit yourself.
>>28382171
Those lines get pretty blurry in Brasil
>>28382623
it looks cooler
>>28382515
>propellers
>stealth
>>28382515
What if we put machine guns in cruise missiles??
That way, we could DAKKA things before blowing them up without worrying about pilot safety!
>>28382675
How, exactly? Would it really be so much better than this?
>>28382754
Mk1 Eyeball has a much better field of view, an MTS is like looking through a soda straw at something.
>>28382623
>does the Tucano have ANY real advantage over the Reaper?
Operating cost, no reliance on satcom, more reliable, faster, equipped with countermeasures, capable of deploying inexpensive unguided munitions.
Reaper has the advantage of a streamlined killchain and crazy endurance.
>Would the Reaper have done better in the same setting?
Depends on the ROE at play, really.
>>28381769
Loiter time theoretically
>>28381989
What would be, in your opinion?
>>28382814
>muh loiter time
then drones win, not even a contest...
>>28381828
>comparing a Longobow with a riced up cropduster
The longbow has a milimeter-wave radar (and FCS), that shit alone is close to a megabuck, you don't need it for low-intensity conflicts.
Also, it at least has SOME armor, albeit not enough...
>>28384897
AH-64Es can also control drones.
>>28382467
Can we fly old MiGs for COIN? Because that's way cooler than a stupid prop plane
>>28381828
>top spec Lamborgini $500k
>top spec Geo Metro $10k
>>28381549
>buying anything from Brazil
No.
Stupid question, but wouldn't it be possible to design a prop plane to be immune or almost immune to manpads and IR missiles?
>>28385577
>http://www.xdtalk.com/threads/kaboom-epic-fail-gun-exploded-at-range.165991/
>we had a member come in with what LOOKED like a TAURUS Judge
>we actually couldn't find a manufacturer's stamp
>The only exception was that it shot 45-70 rnds.
>picked it up at a local pawn shop earlier that day and bought some really "off-brand" ammo
"off-brand" being fucking Buffalo Bore.
>>28385607
And doing some more research it was actually a MIL Thunder 5 (which pre-dates the Taraus Judge by 10 years).
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MIL_Thunder_5
>>28382771
You arshole, made me look it up.
>>28381767
You chose to include the A-10 in there to deliberately trigger me, didn't you?
Here is an actual good CAS plane.
What about using Tucanos in Africa?
I think it would be pretty useful.
They can drop GBUs.
And rockets and cannons are useful for strafing the fuck out of light militia infantry
And they're cheap and easy to maintain, they can take off from short runways
What's not to like?
What other plane would you use?
>it's not fast enough, they can get shot down by a machine gun
So what do you smart asses recommend? A Yak-130? A Scorpion?
>>28385607
>>28385635
C'mon BR, everyone knows Brazilian guns are junk and only rednecks buy them.
Taurus revolvers exploding is not a failure, it's something that you expect to happen sooner or later.
Here is a real Taurus:
http://www.taurusarmed.net/forums/reloads/74566-i-am-embarassed-ashamed-i-caused-catastrophic-failure-my-m66.html
>>28385667
>>28385676
Su-25 is better in every aspect.
>>28385662
A-10 might not be DA BESS but how is it a bad CAS plane?
>>28381549
Fuck off, tucanofag.
>>28382467
But poorfag countries don't have the air search radar
They don't have AWACS
You can hit and get back into your airspace before some shitty African country can get their old MiGs from the centrally located airbase to the place you hit
>>28385662
How is the A-10 not good at CAS?
>>28385715
Because it's version of CAS is several decades old.
Because a significant portion of it's weight is dedicated to a useless gun.
Because it doesn't have the loiter time of a B1/B52.
>>28385662
>close air support
>close
>>28385746
I don't think you know what "close" means...
>>28385747
Yeah the GAU 8 has a terrible impact radius.
>>28385746
I don't think you know what "close" means...
>>28385747
you do understand what cas actually means?
and before you sperg out i ant even that guy who posted b-1
>>28385758
>>28385767
I don't think YOU know what it means.
USA helped out it's Brazil bros, we bought some for the afghanistan airforce.
Afghan lives < the cost of a Pred Drone.
>>28385667
Yes that's exactly the point of this plane. Straffing/bombing shitty militias when you're a shit country.
Other than that the plane would get BTFO by any half serious air defense.
>>28385767
>>28385771
>>28385782
Oh boy, here we go agan
So I'm a dumbass.
When I think "close air support", I visualize an Apache or a Warthog swooping in and gunning down all the bad guys. That's it.
Somebody please give me a more complete picture of how CAS works in the modern world. What problems does CAS solve and how does it solve them? Under what circumstances is CAS necessary?
>>28385782
>>28385771
In military tactics, close air support (CAS) is defined as air action by fixed or rotary-winged aircraft against hostile ground or naval targets, that are close to friendly ground or naval forces, and which requires detailed integration of each air mission with fire and movement of these forces.
Per Wikipedia.
Please tell me how I don't understand what CAS means and how the A-10 isn't terrifically suited for that role.
>>28385746
>close air support
>so this guy wants to call in a B52 to drop bombs a mountain top away from 30,000ft
>still thinks the A10 is worse at CAS than a B52
>the A10 was literally made for Tank busting at Close ranges
>this nigger still wants to call in a fucking bomber of all things for CAS
Fucking niggers, I swear.
>>28385805
Yeah, that isn't CAS.
Close, doesn't mean altitude, it means close to the troops on the ground. A hellfire fired from a drone, or a SDB from an F-35 is safer than an A-10 strafing.
>>28385805
No you're not, some guys in k wanna be fucking hipsters now and talk shit about the warthog because everybody was on its bandwagon a few years ago and God forbid a member of I have an opinion that goes along with the consensus.
>>28385828
Close is subjective, but yeah
>>28385809
Sure.
>>28385746
>>28385820
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/checkpoint/wp/2015/12/30/the-under-appreciated-workhorse-of-americas-air-wars-the-b-1-bomber/
>>28385820
>>28385842
Jesus fucking Christ. Nobodies talking shit about the b1. It's a terrific aircraft. Yes we know. What we're saying is stop shitting on the a-10. It's proven itself over and over and over and over and over again. Goddamn
>>28385800
>Other than that the plane would get BTFO by any half serious air defense.
Well duh but the point of the Tucano is that you use it against enemies who don't have serious air defense. It's a cheap way to drop bombs and shoot rockets at people who don't gab anything more than a few HMGs mounted on pickup trucks for air defense
>>28385854
>no MQ-1/9 specific section
I bet the jews did this
>>28385696
>"I am embarassed and ashamed that I caused a catastrophic failure of my M66."
>>28385871
Haven't most Reaper kills been on Taliban officers away from the battlefield?
>>28385869
here is the thing, if you can afford something else to do this, you would use something else
COIN is easy, anything that
a flies
b holds some dakka
can do coin
so you don't need add some incredibly niche aircraft to your inventory just for single role, its expensive, personal is expensive, training, supply chains are expensive
and if you are that poor you don't have anything else, you damn sure don't have money for super tucano
>>28385842
I must admit, I didn't know the B1 did that.
However:
>hue hue, it can do carpets bombs guise, it must be better than the A10, who was built for CAS, at doing CAS.
No seriously, guys.
>>28385887
>I loaded a round that caused a catastrophic failure of my beloved Taurus M66.
http://www.taurususa.com/product-details.cfm?id=278&category=Revolver
>>28385896
Nope, we have had our tendrils in pretty much everything. We also guide in a lot of munitions from other a/c, especially the B-1s due to heavy cloud decks in Syria.
>>28385905
Carpet bombing is no longer a thing, but bombing several dozen location on a mountain range is.
CAS now is about intelligence, persistence, and payload. The A-10 does not excel in these traits.
>>28385903
You fail to understand that the Tucano and some other similar aircraft fill a market niche in the international defense market
Aircraft for poor countries that need relatively inexpensive airborne dakka and bomb drops against enemies that have little to no air defense
There happens to be a lot of countries out there like that. Like almost all of Africa for instance.
The main competitor is light jet attack aircraft
>>28385910
Why not just use a Global Hawk?
Also what is the status on the Avenger?
>>28385950
Global hawks are useless for doing anything but taking pictures.
>>28385950
>why not just use a bigass absurdly expensive strategic asset
>>28385964
well, and the BACN bridge.
>>28385946
yeah cool, please tell me how many of tucano/ super tucano are in africa
>>28385964
If you are directing air strikes, I'd imagine you want good sensor suit and loiter. I doubt the MQ1/9 can beat a Global Hawk on that front.
>>28385968
Ahh because you have them, lol?
>>28385980
>BACN
I always suspected this was a thing, but did not know until now.
>>28385995
Global hawk can't shoot,guide ordinance,fly at 3k ft, or be really useful at a tactical level at all. You use a Global hawk the same way you would use a U-2, flying at 50k ft+ doing recce/comms relay.
>>28385842
Fascinating article, thanks.
They claim the B1 has a higher payload than the B52. How the hell?
>>28386012
Yeah, Northrop has them on global hawks and E-11s.
>>28386019
the B-1 has the largest payload even without its external pylons.
>>28385995
Global Hawks are best used loitering around the edge of Russian, Chinese and Iranian airspace taking pictures and using passive sensors to gather info on their radars
>>28385607
>http://www.xdtalk.com/threads/kaboom-epic-fail-gun-exploded-at-range.165991/
>"no magnum rule"
This sounds like one of those terrible dumbass ranges that makes shithead rules for the lowest common denominator.
>>28382467
Jesus, what the fuck is wrong with that plane?
>>28381549
ehh, at best it's a good drug interdiction aircraft or for enforcing national policies such as smuggling and illegal mining/foresting.
If the drugs are travelling by air, however, the tucano can't really intercept private jets, and will have a difficult time with some props.
This is where a jet, either a trainer/light attack or even a lightweight multirole such as the Gripen, f-16, or anything secondhand like China's skyguard or Russian mig-21 modernized will be a better fill. The advantage of these aircraft are that they can do a bit of everything, including interception within national boundaries.
>>28385903
>niche aircraft
I wouldn't say that. Its range is good enough so you can go wherever you want within your south american or african country, loiter some time, an get back to your airbase.
Sure a small attack chopper like the Cobra would have more fire power (and would be viable against armored vehicles) for more or less the same price per unit, but cost overal is much more expensive (maintenance wise, fuel consumption, 1 more crew member to train and pay, etc), while having less range and speed.
Plus you can use the super tucano for cheap recon (nice round canopy) and richer countries can use it as a training plane.
So all in all it looks like a nice little plane to me, and I don't see much contenders for its role.
>>28386330
The T-50.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KAI_T-50_Golden_Eagle
>>28381549
>best COIN aircraft
That would be pic related, not some shitty P51 rendition.
>>28386330
here is the thing, they don't
its nice and fine in the theory but reality show other wise
especially for super tucano only real operator of aircraft are country that were directly economically invested in platform it was not a military decision but a economical one
in real world is either not good enough or to expensive
>>28385990
Just look at the wiki page. Sure there aren't huge numbers of them (except in Brazil), but more than a few countries own this plane - including the US of A.
>>28385820
A-10s were made for CAS based on experiences in Vietnam.
North Vietnam did not have much of a tank fleet.
>>28385854
These charts never include the amount of aircraft.
>>28386416
>North Vietnam did not have much of a tank fleet.
>>28386440
Is it really that much of a shock?
>>28386353
>>28386389
Sure both of them are better planes, but at least double the price.
Don't forget the countries buying this kind of plane are on a budget. Mali bought something like 6 super tucanos.
Which is better, 6 super tucanos or 3 T50 ?
>>28386409
look at what?
here you are singing this nice song on how amazing said aircraft is, how everyone and their mom should own one
tucano got some history, history of a amazing trainer
super tucano is in service from 2001 now and only 4 nations operates them in any meaningful number
i am not saying that anything wrong with aircraft
>>28386472
3 t50 hands down
way more capable platform
>>28386400
except the US was going to buy super tucanos and then someone canceled it
Cheap planes being recon/bomb trucks is always useful
Really, the amount of training needed to be a pilot is overrated.
>>28386416
The A-10 was clearly made for coin
Anything made for CAS based on vietnam would have noticed aircraft were shot down in their thousands.
>>28386506
The US had a great COIN aircraft in Vietnam though and it was nothing like the A-10
>>28386472
Considering a single T50 would shit on 6 Super Tucanos at once, the T50s
>>28385571
Lamborginins have always been very overpriced when you look at their driving performance.
Way more overpriced than something like a ferrari
>>28385937
>CAS now is about intelligence, persistence, and payload. The A-10 does not excel in these traits.
Stop talking out of your ass.
>>28385964
Yeah but it's really good at taking pictures. Puzzle palace best watch their turf
>>28385662
>Send a single B1 to destroy a mud hut with a JDAM
>Cost: $200 million
Send a single A-10 to destroy a mud hut with a zuni rocket
>Cost: $12 million
Wow, a plane that is almost 10x as much can carry more and loiter longer. Who would have thought.
>>28382098
>There are some things in life where paying extra to get the better quality product is more important than getting the best deal, and air superiority is one of them.
I agree the F-22 was worth the cost, but he was talking about the F35.
>>28382078
You do realize that most countries do not have the infrastructure to operate drones right?
>>28382203
>implying you can drop a 250lb bomb while going high and fast on an enemy position that is yards away from friendlies
>implying that isn't a recipe for friendly fire
>implying a drone couldn't do the same thing for a fraction of the cost.
The above scenario has happened several times in Afghanistan btw. Face it, the F-35 is trash.
>>28385554
>hurr durr props are bad
Want to know how I know you are retarded?
>>28387246
>implying that isn't a recipe for friendly fire
A-10s have killed more US and British soldiers than the F/A-18, F-16 and F-15 put together.
>>28382515
>Stealth
>Low and Slow
Stealth isn't terrible helpful when you're putting yourself in the engagement envelope of small arms guided by Mark 1 Eyeball. Aka "Why the Comanche was cancelled"
>>28385705
>Be poorfag African nation
>Have SU-25s
>They sit, slowly rusting because I can't afford to maintain or operate a fleet of twinjets equipped with >Russian engines
>Be smarter poorfag African nation
>Have Super Tucanos
>They fly bombing rebels everyday because of the gloriously reliable and efficient PT-6, basically the finest turboprop engine ever made and the sole reason Canada as a nation deserves to exist
>>28387246
Dropping PGM from up high with ground forces designating targets is vastly safer to ground forces then low CAS passes where weapons operators on the aircraft choose targets.
>>28387279
Speaks the truth.
>>28384897
>Also, it at least has SOME armor, albeit not enough...
the tail of that thing in your picture is covered with canvas. the apache is probably more heavily armored than that.
>>28387472
The Apache is protected by armor around the pilots, avionics, the control lines, the fuel lines and engines. Additionally, there is redundancy and separation of critical parts that means any single attack is very unlikely to cause crippling damage.
>>28387251
Chill out, nigga, I said "cooler". What would you rather watch dropping bombs on people, a prop plane or a sweet ass Mig-21?
>>28382467
fishbed is love
fishbed is life
>>28387214
There are many countries buying F-35s that do not have F-22s.
>>28382754
because its painfully easy to lie to a camera.
just like with any other image on a screen, be it tv, internet, movie, what have you, it cannot be trusted to be real.
>>28381549
Because Jet Trainers than can easily be outfitted as combat aircraft exist.
Thats for the Good Boy Third World countries. Communist and Dictatorial shitholes simply buy the cheapest slavshit/chinkshit and call it a day.
>>28387246
>Drones are cheaper than manned aircraft
When will this meme end?
>>28387279
>>28387429
So now you have to quantify your statement with what % of each aircrafts munitions release was danger close.
>>28385728
Define "poorfag"
Even "poorfags" like Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and fucking Burma has fairly extensive radar installation, and functioning Air force with respectable 4th gen fighter
>>28386019
>They claim the B1 has a higher payload than the B52. How the hell?
what's the mystery here? the B1 came later and has hardpoints.
they're also both pretty similar in size, aside from the BUFF's significantly greater wingspan.
>>28387614
Philippines is a shithole too. The only difference is that they suck our dick instead of licking china's pussy
>>28387378
>Mark 1 Eyeball
Is this supposed to be clever? You just end up sounding like a faggot desu.
>>28388563
Read a book.
>>28388584
>I had to read a book to know what an eye is
>>28381549
The Super Tucano really does have a respectable number of users, though.
Afghanistan - 20 ordered, first delivered in 2015, order to be completed by 2019
Angola - 6 ordered, three delivered so far
Brazil - 99 in service
Burkino Faso - 3 in service
Chile - 12 in service
Colombia - 25 in service
Dominican Republic - 8 in service
Ecuador - 18 aircraft
Ghana - 5 ordered
Honduras - 2 ordered
Indonesia - 8 in service
Mali - 6 ordered
Mozambique - 3 rented?
Mauritania - ???
Senegal - 3 ordered
This is from wikipedia so don't know how accurate it is, but it seems like it is getting around.
>>28388703
>respectable
is there a single country on that list that has indoor plumbing?
>>28388763
>Product designed for underdeveloped countries is mostly purchased by underdeveloped countries
Wow.
>>28388703
Compare that with pilatus (PC-7,9 and 21), and that number is jack shit in comparison
First world prop plane for first world countries who used them for its intended purposes (basic trainer and maybe for aerobatic stunts)
Third world prop plane for third world countries that are deluding themselves, thinking that they have a fighter aircraft
>>28388800
what about that surprises you?
>>28388842
It surprises me that you thought it was worth mentioning.
>>28388849
that wasn't me?
who or what are you trying to say here?
>>28381549
Because if you're enemy doesn't have capabilities to shoot down one those you can fight against them with helicopters which can be also used for other shit.
If they have capabilities shoot down one those then go jet fighter.. More speed and altitude.
>>28388842
You're really really really dump
>Muh JDAMs
Not trying to talk shit about JDAMs, but low-altitude gun/rocket runs have a very different effect on the battlefield.
Dedicated low-altitude CAS aircraft performing gun, rocket and low-altitude bombing runs are extremely effective for supporting ground forces on the front line, where conditions are constantly changing.
They also have a very different psychological effect on the enemy, heavily impacting their morale. Being able to see and hear the enemy attacking you is extremely intimidating. Not to mention the uplifting effect it has on friendly troops' morale.
That being said, high-altitude precision bombing has its place as well. For example in extreme-threat environments (heavy AAA coverage, large amount of MANPADS in play), or for long-endurance missions supporting multiple units over a large area.
So in the end, a mixture of these applications depending on the battlefield conditions will determine which form of CAS will be most effective.
Is your army performing a large offensive against the enemy, resulting in heavy clashes? Su-25s/A-10s and attack helicopters will be the best form of direct support
Is your army fighting a low-intensity battle against the enemy, resulting in unpredictable fighting? Then you'll want to load up a B1/Tu-160/Tu-22M or UCAVs with precision munitions.
>>28389076
>but low-altitude gun/rocket runs have a very different effect on the battlefield.
Yeah they're more vulnerable and less accurate.
>>28388703
Super Tucano is only good for bombing your own population. It has no other use. In a real battlefield it would get wiped off pretty quickly.
>>28389086
>I don't know what an area target is
>I'm not aware that 30mm guns are extremely accurate
>I have no idea what morale and psychological warfare is
>muh morale
yeah i'm sure people did a gallup poll or a focus group with goatfuckers to see whether being killed by guns was worse for morale or not
>>28389164
>>I have no idea what morale and psychological warfare is
I'd love to see if you have a shred of evidence for the psychological effect of a rocket run as opposed to a guided weapon.
>>28389164
I'm going to be up front. Everything you're saying about morale and psychology, you're making up. I know you are and you know you are.
>>28389197
>>28389211
Except for the fact that combat air controllers and ground forces have again and again testified to the effectiveness of close-range CAS compared to simply dropping JDAMs.
Or how the US Army explicitly told the Air Force that the A-10 was an invaluable asset.
Seriously, don't mistake me for claiming that JDAMs and precision weapons are shit, I'm claiming that both have their place depending on what kind of operation you are performing and what the battlefield conditions look like.
>>28389164
>30mm guns are extremely accurate
Not really, not when fired from a moving aircraft. Aside from accuracy, 30mm cannons have many, many other drawbacks that make them undesirable CAS weapons.
A guided weapon is simply better in every respect.
>>28387558
>>28387566
Best plane
>>28385820
Could fit half a dozen GAU-8s on a B52 and so some properly horrifying strafing runs
>>28389246
>Except for the fact that combat air controllers and ground forces have again and again testified to the effectiveness of close-range CAS compared to simply dropping JDAMs.
Where?
>>28389276
There's been a number of articles about it, you can find a half dozen by just googling.
But if you want specific names, Chief of Staff of the Army General Ray Odierno (now retired) and Vice Chief of Staff of the Army General John Campbell have both testified to the effectiveness of the A-10.
There was an article that interviewed Combat Air Controllers, where they mentioned that they had to request specific demands (dozen gun trigger pulls and high loiter time) in order to get the Air Force to send out A-10s when they deemed they needed them, otherwise they would just get F-16s dropping JDAMs.
>>28389391
If the army thought it was so good
why don't they just buy their own cas plane?
>>28389391
can you save us some time and just post links to the interviews you're talking about?
I'm interested in reading them now.
>>28389437
If I'm not mistaken, army isn't allowed to have fixed wing aircraft.
Is that plane really any good or do you just have a boner for prop-driven warplanes?
>>28381767
>2016
>Including planes with actual pilots onboard.
>>28389445
Sure thing, I'm afraid I can't find the article with the JTAC interviews, but here's a few articles.
They often have the same quotes pilots, officers and brass have made regarding the A-10.
This is a fairly impartial article, and I trust the source to a reasonable degree.
http://www.airforcetimes.com/story/military/2015/03/23/battle-kill-warthog-air-force-a-10/25216661/
This article is also rather impartial, but I'm not entirely sure of the source.
http://breakingdefense.com/2013/12/a-10-close-air-support-wonder-weapon-or-boneyard-bound/
Here's a much more biased article (it fellates the A-10's metaphorical dick), but it has some good quotes and makes a few decent points.
https://medium.com/war-is-boring/the-u-s-air-force-quashed-concerns-about-dumping-the-a-10-c1ed3c23e807#.993u3yhtd
And I'd like to reiterate, I'm *NOT* advocating using A-10s or other "low&slow" CAS aircraft for all CAS missions. Or claiming that the A-10 always does CAS better than the F-15E/F-16/B-1B.
The point I'm making is that you want the capability these aircraft provide, because in some conditions they will be far more effective than a multirole fighter dropping bombs.
>>28381943
/thread
>>28389526
A-10 does COIN better than F-15/f-16/B-2
It's probably more dumbasses who don't think its "cas" if they can't see the plane doing it anyways.
>>28389507
It's combat proven. It works very well for its intended purpose. The problem is when people hype it up as an alternative to the A-10 when it has 1/5 the A-10's payload. If you need a relatively cheap aircraft for doing strafing runs and occasionally dropping small bombs on pesky rebels, then the Tucano is a very good buy for countries that can't afford to operate drones.
>>28387595
Why would this fool a camera but not someone's eyes?
>>28386416
>>28386440
You really have to define "CAS experiences in Vietnam" here so people won't think they wanted to use 30 mm autocannon and Hellfires against vietnamese guerrillas:
>Criticism that the U.S. Air Force did not take close air support (CAS) seriously prompted a few service members to seek a specialized attack aircraft.[5][6] In the Vietnam War, large numbers of ground-attack aircraft were shot down by small arms, surface-to-air missiles, and low-level anti-aircraft gunfire, prompting the development of an aircraft better able to survive such weapons. In addition, the UH-1 Iroquois and AH-1 Cobra helicopters of the day, which USAF commanders had said should handle close air support, were ill-suited for use against armor, carrying only anti-personnel machine guns and unguided rockets meant for soft targets. Fast jets such as the F-100 Super Sabre, F-105 Thunderchief and F-4 Phantom II proved for the most part to be ineffective for close air support because their high speed did not allow pilots enough time to get an accurate fix on ground targets and they lacked sufficient loiter time. The effective, but aging, Korean War era A-1 Skyraider was the USAF's primary close air support aircraft.[7][8]
>>28382467
But thats not a j7/mig21 anon
>>28389526
I'll add them to my big list of aircraft sources.
>>28381769
Fuel consumption vs. combat loadout, time to target, loiter time, delta V, and patrol area.
Also overall crew survivability (smaller crew if they are shot down,) noise alerting targets during transit (high enough ceiling so enemies don't hear the patrolling aircraft as well as helicopters,) and training time for pilots.
I'm probably forgetting stuff.
>>28389498
The US Army is not allowed fixed wing aircraft if the USAF already performs the function.
For example the US Army has ~200 C-12 Huron utility aircraft.
>>28389266
>30mm cannons have many, many other drawbacks that make them undesirable CAS weapons
>proceeds to list none
>>28389246
>>28389391
>>28389526
As someone >>28381767 who used to kneejerk shit on the A-10 before seeing the error of my ways, saved for future use.
F-35 arguments have made anons too partisan to acknowledge the value of different aircraft.
>>28388874
Its a pretty simple message isn't it?
Contrary to the OP, Tucano a shit
The Supertucano is good, but not that good. It's only useful in conflicts were the enemy has no AA whatsoever. A simple 50 cal pointed towards the sky can shoot down a Super-Tucano, a few guys with manpads will keep any makeshift COIN aircraft away.
>>28389732
>I'm probably forgetting stuff.
Choppers don't have as much range and speed, which is a big deal in large countries covered with huge deserts or jungle.
>>28390830
Probably a stupid question, but can the super tucano get any kind of counter measure, like chaffs, flares or ECM ?
>>28391103
Apache's range is only about 20% worse than the Tucan's.
>>28390830
A .30 cal could shoot down a Super-Tucano.
>see WWII
>>28385767
Maybe we should mount a flame thrower and byonets on the next gen CAS plane.
>>28391220
Flails on next gen helos.
>>28385667
Boeing OV10A
>>28391269
Are those still in production ?
>>28385667
Dude 10 million dollars lmao
>>28386472
OV 10 is not really any more expensive than the tucano.
>>28388269
((Cost of aircraft including entire development and procurement)+(cost of replacing a dead pilot including training and death benefits to family)+(total lifetime operational cost))/(lifetime hours of deployed flight time)==drones are cheaper
>>28388879
Helicopters are easier to shoot down than tucanos.
>>28381746
if they really were, then more people would use them
>>28391161
How much fuel does it burn on that 80% run?
>>28391344
Yes
