Using the F-15 for hunting sandpeople armed with AKs and RPG-7s is a waste or money, but it seems the the F-15 are used for this, maybe because it has better combat radius than the F-16 and both of the aircraft need long airstrips to launch so having an F-16 flying some missions is impossible because of lack suitable airbases.
Dedicated subsonic attack aircraft have been frowned upon for a long time, it seems mostly for cultural reasons, they don't fit into the discourse of fast flying "Top Gun" king-of-the-skies mindset that the western culture seems to have.
The A-10 has its proponents on the Internet, you can't miss it if you frequent /k/, advantages such as high resistance AA-guns, battlefield presence (not just dropping
bomb at 20k feet and leaving the scene after 1 minute) and of course the versatile monster of a 30mm gatling gun has earned the A-10 a reputation of being a warhorse.
But what about the OV-10 Bronco? It uses propellers that from what I've heard is advantageous at lower altitudes because it allows for much better fuel use. But what are the other advantages of the Bronco?
Bonus points for Vietnam War anecdotes of Bronco missions.
TL DR: OV-10 Bronco; Why should the US buy hundreds of them?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_Rockwell_OV-10_Bronco
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/03/09/why-is-america-using-these-antique-planes-to-fight-isis.html
>>29281251
manpad proliferation in coin situations has made slow propgarbage useless
>>29281324
Manpads could be countered though, not only by flares and chaff, but also with active measures such as the ones mounted on modern armor.
For instance russian Arena systems seems to counter many anti-tank missiles, I don't see why the huge improvements that has happened in the last decades won't trickle into airspace eventually. The manpads you are speaking of isn't mach 4 missiles after all, a defense system has some time to react and deploy counter grenades.
>>29281548
>but also with active measures such as the ones mounted on modern armor.
so we will need to add literally hundreds of pounds of downward looking radar in several directions. then we need hundreds of pounds of equipment containing the actual aps interceptors. then you take into account that arena is literally a downward shooting shotgun and likely isn't meant to hit things while on a craft moving at 100+ mph. Add to that that even if you went with a system like quick kill you still end up destroying the missile so close to the craft that it will likely destroy the airplane anyway.
>>29281548
Why go through all that bullshit when you can just climb above their engagement envelopes?
>>29281251
>Dedicated subsonic attack aircraft have been frowned upon for a long time, it seems mostly for cultural reasons, they don't fit into the discourse of fast flying "Top Gun" king-of-the-skies mindset that the western culture seems to have.
No
>advantages such as high resistance AA-guns, battlefield presence (not just dropping
bomb at 20k feet and leaving the scene after 1 minute) and of course the versatile monster of a 30mm gatling gun has earned the A-10 a reputation of being a warhorse.
and no.
S U P E R T U C A N O
>>29281251
It would make the U.S. look regressive and weak. The term "if it ain't broke, why fix it" comes to mind.
More to the point, when?
>>29281737
When they decide to give it some FLIR and SAR, so never.
>>29281657
>Why go through all that bullshit when you can just climb above their engagement envelopes?
Well, what will you do of someone develops a manpad/mobile SAM that can hit targets at 40k feet? Just stop flying aircraft where there might be air defences?
And there are advantages to flying low and slow, like being able to navigate valleys and thereby avoiding radars.
Flying low and slow also gives the pilot opportunities to see what's going on on the ground, seeing targets of opportunity and reacting swiftly. Camouflage works well against aircraft at 20k feet, not so much when the pilot is at 300 feet.
>>29281548
Active kinetic countermeasures like Arena are being developed for aircraft:
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/usaf-working-on-new-defensive-missile-for-fighters-423185/
The reason it's hard though is because you need fairly long range systems; if you blow up an incoming missile a few feet from you, you're still dead. Instead you have to be intercepting the missile from at least a few hundred meters away, which means you have to make larger, less agile missiles (compared to stuff like this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OAaw3S56nhc the missiles will still be crazy AIM-9X-like maneuverable though). You also can't afford to have to have them too big (due to limited carriage) so you also have to make their warheads relatively small, meaning you pretty much have to make them hit-to-kill.
>>29281779
At that point you need SEAD gear
Which as it turns out, is best done when dedicated to a completely separate airframe...
Better question, /k/:
Does the proliferation of sensor systems on [recon UAVs/bombers/multiroles], combined with increasing low-altitude AA threats, make the traditional manned FAC obsolete?
It seems like lately all the attack control is a cooperative endeavor between the TACP/ANGLICO/whatever on the ground, and the pilot/WSO in the air looking through his own IR&EO equipment.
So, is manned FAC in the style of O-3, OA-10, OV-10 and so on obsolete?
>>29281779
If you have MANPADs and Mobile SAMs you're not operating in COIN, and the A-10 is going to get fucked into oblivion.
>Flying low and slow also gives the pilot opportunities to see what's going on on the ground, seeing targets of opportunity and reacting swiftly.
Kill yourself
>>29281713
Using an airframe (F-15) built by the motto "Not a pount for air-to-ground" for CAS and COIN missions seems pretty broken to me.
And yes, it might make the U.S look regressive and weak, I understand that, but with that argument you could say the US Airforce is backwards for still flying the B-52.
>>29281779
>Well, what will you do of someone develops a manpad/mobile SAM that can hit targets at 40k feet? Just stop flying aircraft where there might be air defences?
Do you have a moment to hear about our Lord and Savior SEAD/DEAD?
>>29281779
>And there are advantages to flying low and slow, like being able to navigate valleys and thereby avoiding radars.
And thereby flying straight into MANPADS range?
>Flying low and slow also gives the pilot opportunities to see what's going on on the ground, seeing targets of opportunity and reacting swiftly. Camouflage works well against aircraft at 20k feet, not so much when the pilot is at 300 feet.
No it doesn't, it just means the pilot sees LESS shit moving QUICKER.
You now realize that even A10s spend most of their time at medium altitude using targeting pods and JDAMs
>>29281251
>replace a slow vulnerable jet with a slower more vulnerable prop that carries less ordnance
>>29281779
>Flying low and slow also gives the pilot opportunities to see what's going on on the ground
Have you ever flown much at low level, aside from riding a commercial plane into and out of airports? The "low&slow enhances SA" meme seems a bit overstated to me. Generally, you still can't see small things. A Cessna doing 180kts isn't much better for vision than an F-16 doing 250.
>>29281805
>So, is manned FAC in the style of O-3, OA-10, OV-10 and so on obsolete?
What the fuck do you think FAC means
![PCAS_ProgramPage[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/ArM5mNy.jpg "PCAS_ProgramPage[1].jpg")
>>29281805
I would argue so, although airborne sensors on multiroles / bombers / drones are only part of the answer - ground-based equipment sending IFF, target coordinates and imagery / footage to pilots / WSOs.
(excuse the cartooniness of the DARPA pic)
>>29281810
That motto was relevant when the F15 was first introduced FORTY YEARS AGO.
It has ceased being relevant since the F15E Strike Eagle was introduced...27 years ago.
ffs m8
>>29281712
>welfare airplane
>>29281798
>Active kinetic countermeasures like Arena are being developed for aircraft:
>https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/usaf-working-on-new-defensive-missile-for-fighters-423185/
Thanks for the link, I imagined there would be developments in that direction.
>if you blow up an incoming missile a few feet from you, you're still dead.
Yes, but extend that range to 100 feet and a sturdy aircraft such as the A-10 the pilot might be able to get home alive even if the aircraft is damaged.
A fragile air superiority fighter would have problem dealing with shrapnel without a doubt, but if were talking about something that is built for taking a few 12,7mm hits and survive I think the odds are much better.
>>29281809
>If you have MANPADs and Mobile SAMs you're not operating in COIN
This is incorrect for two reasons-
1. ex-Ghaddafi SA-7 have been sold and traded all over the region in unknown quantity
2. our Sunni "allies" Qatar & KSA have been discreetly supplying SA-7s and FN-6 to their jihadi pawns
Any dickhead militia in the Middle East is a potential MANPADS operator.
>>29281324
1. Fly at 15000+ feet.
2. DIRCM finally counter current MANPADS.
>>29281921
Might as well use a drone at that point.
A better solution for COIN operations anyway.
>>29281884
>That motto was relevant when the F15 was first introduced FORTY YEARS AGO.
The F-15 still has the same geometry. It is still has the same shape and therefore is still needs the long runways, still is as expensive to fly and maintain.
My point is that you don't need a Porsche for delivering pizzas, and if the pizza company only has Porsches in their garage the company is wasting money.
>>29281982
CAS is not pizza delivery, and the F-15E is distinctly different to the F-15C.
k-k-k-kill yourself
>>29281982
What a terrible and irrelevant analogy
>>29281896
So what you are saying is, we need an airborne battleship instead of these stupid fast-mover "strike" planes
>>29281937
Small turboprops have comparable flight hour costs.
http://nation.time.com/2013/04/02/costly-flight-hours/
>>29282000
Checked.
>F-15E is distinctly different to the F-15C
But some facts remain:
The F-15 developers had supersonic flight in mind. Therefore they didn't use straight wings or propellers, they also didn't put lots of armor on the F-15 because they wanted high thrust-to-weight.
The A-10 was designed for subsonic flight, and therefore was designed with the superior straight wing design.
The Osprey has propellers, it might be possible to build a tilt-jet design but it was not chosen.
Why do i bring up this then? Well its because I want to show that there are factors that determine design of airframes.
The F-15 had to be fast, around Mach 2, it had to use jet propulsion, and swept wings was choosen even though it made the aircraft worse when it comes to how long runways it needs.
It's all very simple, design choices has advantages and disadvantages.
>>29281779
>Well, what will you do of someone develops a manpad/mobile SAM that can hit targets at 40k feet? Just stop flying aircraft where there might be air defences?
laugh at the guy who's lugging around a 3 ton MANPAD.
>And there are advantages to flying low and slow, like being able to navigate valleys and thereby avoiding radars.
yes, but that leaves you vulnerable in other ways.
and what if you don't have a convenient canyon to rage through?
>Flying low and slow also gives the pilot opportunities to see what's going on on the ground, seeing targets of opportunity and reacting swiftly. Camouflage works well against aircraft at 20k feet, not so much when the pilot is at 300 feet.
um... no. dropping without clearance with type 1 or 2 control is a quick way to get jailed and at the very least sent home from a deployment
>>29282036
Flight hour costs are only one consideration.
![One-wing-F-15[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/YKuH5Id.jpg "One-wing-F-15[1].jpg")
>>29281896
If your aircraft has to fly back to base due to shrapnel damage though, it might as well be dead. Remember, only the cockpit is designed to handle 23mm, everything else on the A-10 is still susceptible to small arms / AAA / missile shrapnel.
Also, multiroles / air superiority fighters aren't that fragile.
>>29282100
>designed for supersonic flight
While it can hit Mach 2, warplanes rarely spend extended period of time at supersonic speeds
>>29282015
I'm arguing that if you have a rugged airframe with anti-MANPAD systems, the argument "MANPADS has made CAS under 20k feet obsolete" doesn't necessarily hold up.
I'm saying that maybe low-and-slow approach to CAS and COIN isn't dead yet, and I'm saying that if the marine corps had the to choose between getting one F-35 or ten Broncos, the broncos might be a better choice.
>>29282100
>speed meme
>implying the F-15s massive wing area doesn't result in excellent low-speed characteristics
Even supersonic jets have to land, anon
>>29282180
F-15Es with load aren't even capable of Mach 2 anyway.
>>29282190
>I'm saying that maybe low-and-slow approach to CAS and COIN isn't dead yet
It is.
Oh and airframes being "rugged" doesn't matter jack shit. A plane riddled with shrapnel is likely a write-off, a definately not air worthy for a long ass time.
Know whats better? Not getting fucking hit by AA because you're too low and slow to avoid it
>>29282190
>a rugged airframe with anti-MANPAD systems
So you want lots of armor and lots of hard-kill countermeasures, even if it makes your design balloon in both weight and size. And it needs a big gun. Like some kind of airborne battleship. Amirite?
>>29282100
in what ways are straight wings superior?
the F-15E is cleared to carry more weapons than anything else in the Air Force. it's got a huge wing in terms of surface area. it's got hours and hours of gas. there are two people on board so SA is greater. there's a radar so clouds over the area aren't a problem (your low and slow gun run just means you've got a higher risk of hitting the ground if you descend through clouds). plus a F-15E is a semi-credible air to air threat, vs an A-10 whose defense is min radius circle and hope the sidewinder tracks well.
>>29282190
low and slow CAS is dead.
>>29282231
on the other hand, a F-15E with no CFTs will supercruise.
>>29282241
Probably a glider, too.
>>29282247
No, the gliders are converted M113 GAVINs for amphibious assault. They will be supported by a heavily armored super-ship firing 16"/50s from 200M offshore.
>>29281251
>resistance to AA guns
Just fly outside of their effective ceiling
>battlefield presence
Just bomb whoever needs bombing (from high up) then fuck off.
>versatile monser of a 30mm gatling gun
Innacurate, can't handle modern tanks, forces you to fly low and not as effective as just dropping HE on your target from high up.
Idiots have earned it a reputation as a warhorse, it got pulled from combat during the Golf War for a reason....
>>29281779
>man-portable missiles with a ceiling of 40k feet
Sure, as long as they perfect exoskeletons so the poor fucks can lug it about.
>>29282171
>If your aircraft has to fly back to base due to shrapnel damage though, it might as well be dead.
Not as well, because you save the pilot, and pilots are worth alot of money, and not only money, time. You can't buy experienced pilots, you gotta grow them like a garden, I dunno the exact numbers but it probably costs a few million dollars train a pilot with hundreds of hours of flight experience.
Denying the enemy morale boost from shooting down an aircraft is also a big thing i COIN, and for you own troops knowing they fly an aircraft that can handle a hairy situation.
>>29282297
>Golf War
Cannot believe I typed that, still though, sounds interesting......
.....googled it, turns out its an appropriately themed game.
>>29282231
>>I'm saying that maybe low-and-slow approach to CAS and COIN isn't dead yet
>It is.
How do you explain this then? (from OPost)
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/03/09/why-is-america-using-these-antique-planes-to-fight-isis.html
>>29282352
or you could just kill the enemy by hitting them with a JDAM. i hear that kills their morale. i also hear your troops enjoy not getting shot at because the bad guys are dead.
>>29282364
oh, so we don't wear our PPE now, huh. or covers when we're outside, huh.
>>29282376
because spec ops aviation is weird and shouldn't be taken as anything more than spec ops aviation.
>>29282376
Its just an experiment, they only used 2 of them and they aren't going to bother using more.
It's all very well to harp on about 'muh money, muh savings' but at the end of the day, you want the best.
The best can be used against Russia/China/etc effectively, it can also be used against ISIS effectively, its just expensive.
An OV-10 might be cheaper to operate against ISIS but it'd be utterly analy devastared in a war with any kind of AA/SAM/MANPAD/hostile aircraft etc
Better just to go with the better, more expensive option than cheap out and down the line realise your aircraft are utterly uselss.
>>29282379
>oh, so we don't wear our PPE now, huh. or covers when we're outside, huh.
What? Pretty sure its not supposed to be a serious game a la arma.
>>29282424
>the joke
>your head
>>29282242
>in what ways are straight wings superior?
Straight wings provides good control when flying at low speeds, straight wings is good because you can use shorter runways, and shorter runways is good because it means you can have forward airfields/bases and don't have to fly for half an hour before your aircraft arrives on the theater of operations.
Straight wings suck at higher speeds though.
>>29281251
I just can't envision the USA buying the Super Tucano or the Bronco in large numbers. If they decide to do this, then it will be a small-scale project with less than 100 purchased.
>>29282437
Yes, it has gone over my head, please explain.
>>29282443
>and shorter runways is good because it means you can have forward airfields/bases
You're really reaching now. Can you just admit that you are making up these justifications on the fly because BRRRRT and in-your-face cannonry has an emotional appeal?
>>29282128
>laugh at the guy who's lugging around a 3 ton MANPAD.
>guy who's lugging around a 3 ton MANPAD.
Bro, do you even air-defense?
>>29282488
Straight wings have better take-off and land performance (as in, less runway is required) and they give a smaller turn radius at slow speeds. That's exactly why planes like the Tomcat had the ability to straighten out their wings before taking off: to reduce the distance required for a solid take-off. If you're operating in a place where nice clean runways are hard to find, then a shorter take-off is preferable.
>>29282443
oh if only it were half an hour. every coalition aircraft these days takes about 90 minutes to get to the fight... sometimes more. the F-15E can fly faster (obviously) which is an advantage when you need to get somewhere in a hurry - like a TIC or a time-sensitive target. it's extremely difficult to make up time. and it's pretty docile in slow flight too.
>>29282457
parody of overzealous E-9's reaction to such a silly game, and how the first thing they'd take issue to is that he's not wearing his helmet and doesn't have his weapon.
>>29282501
it's going to be a lot bigger than a SA-7 in order to reach 40k ft. for comparison, a S-400's missile weighs about 2 tons.
>>29282516
there's tactical considerations beyond just minimum turn radius.
>>29282488
This thread isn't even about the A-10, its about the Bronco.
And the flexibility of not having to use long runways is pretty obvious. The Osprey is expensive but very nice because it lands like a helicopter but has much better range.
The Harrier was essential in the Bongs victory in the falklands war.
The Gripen is a guerilla style swing/multirole that was designed around being able to operate even if the ruskies bomb swedish airbases.
Not being dependant on 2 mile smooth asphalt runways offers advantages.
>>29282516
I think you need a psychiatrist to talk to about this, not /k/. It's OK, lots of us are planefags here. Most of us just don't take it so far that we think our planefu is a godsend just because BRRRT makes our willys hard. Now again,
>Can you just admit that you are making up these justifications on the fly because BRRRRT and in-your-face cannonry has an emotional appeal?
>>29282556
>This thread isn't even about the A-10, its about the Bronco.
>"is the Bronco the new A-10?"
The A-10 is exactly 50% of the topic, actually.
>>29282570
Can you admit that there are advantages to a straight-wing design?
>>29282592
Not in ways relevant to this thread, no. Especially not with the excellent low-speed lift offered by the modified delta present on the Strike Eagle. Especially not in an age where survivability against SAMs demands a fast jet, see all the SAMs dodged by F-16s over Baghdad in GW1.
>>29282628
COIN aircraft aren't supposed to go up against SAM's at all though. The only place where any of these planes being discussed in this thread (A-10,A-29, OV-10) is in permissive airspace where anything vaguely resembling a SAM has already been blown to bits.
>>29282572
Well you gotta write something catchy in the topic so the thread doesn't fade into 404... I was just hoping the BRRRTs woul'd help me get the thread started, is is after all a prop attack aircraft, seemed like a an american Tucano or something along those lines.
I really wanted to hear some Bronco stuff though, I'd never heard about it before today, maybe a Vietnam anecdote?
>>29282664
>COIN aircraft aren't supposed to go up against SAM's at all though
Yes, they are.
see
>>29281902
It's not 2010 anymore. Durkas have missiles now.
>>29282691
MANPADS are not SAMs, retard. It's a huge difference.
>>29282760
>MANPADS are not surface to air missiles
..yes, they are.
>>29282760
yes they are.
they go from the surface to hit planes, they have a rocket motor, and they have some form of guidance.
by definition they're SAMs
>>29282532
>parody of overzealous E-9's reaction to such a silly game, and how the first thing they'd take issue to is that he's not wearing his helmet and doesn't have his weapon.
Oh ok, well I guess you'd have have been in the military to get that instantly, I wasn't sure if you were just being autistic or not, its getting harder to tell on /k/.....
>>29282670
If you want to know about the Bronco, research it yourself.
Websites, archives, articles, books, youtube etc etc
Make a stupid thread, expect stupid replies.
>>29282760
>sur·face-to-air missile (sûr′fəs-tə-âr′)
n. Abbr. SAM
A guided missile launched from land or sea against an airborne target.
>Noun
1.MANPAD - a man-portable surface-to-air missile
>>29282790
>I guess you'd have have been in the military to get that instantly, I wasn't sure if you were just being autistic or not,
#1 Reg about regs is that all regs are autism
>>29282995
.....yeah, that does make sense.
