USAF Light Attack aircraft Program thread

USAF Light Attack aircraft Program thread

defensenews.com/air/2018/12/18/start-of-air-forces-light-attack-plane-competition-pushed-back-until-next-year/

Sounds like USAF weenies are stalling, probably because they feel this is now beneath them, and they are all wanting to join Trump's new Space Farce. I say take that part of the budget and give it to US Army and USMC (light attack should be able to land on USMC helicopter carriers).

Maybe USA should just buy Su-25/28 from Georgian FSU factory! First time in history airplane bombs factory where it was built! :)

" In early August 2008, Russian Su-25s attacked the Tbilisi Aircraft Manufacturing plant, where the Su-25 is produced, dropping bombs on the factory's airfield.[47]"

SU-25/28 from Georgia, USSR today probably cheaper than a Cessna "light attack" will be after USAF weenies get done padding the expenses with US based factory.

How about ULTRA-light attack? sunflightcraft.com/en/paraplane_whatis1.php sure beats humping that backpack on foot. I'm pretty sure these can land on any terrain no problem as well as any paratrooper with the added advantage of being able to pick you spot and take-off again almost anywhere. Cheap, too.

Attached: Russian_Air_Force_Su-25.jpg (575x350 20.86 KB, 148.13K)

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embraer_EMB_314_Super_Tucano
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_Douglas_T-45_Goshawk
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yakovlev_Yak-130
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piaggio_P.180_Avanti
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_A2D_Skyshark#/media/File:Douglas_A2D_Standard_Aircraft_Characteristics.png
defense-studies.blogspot.com/2017/07/us-scheduled-to-deliver-2-isr-aircraft.html?m=1
aircraftcompare.com/helicopter-airplane/Diamond-DA-42-Twin-Star/323
aircraftcompare.com/helicopter-airplane/OMA-SUD-Skycar/305
globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/systems/lau-88.htm
aircraftcompare.com
youtube.com/watch?v=9we8FvXw2Ss
dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3495947/Horrifying-video-shows-moment-Iraqi-plane-went-shot-sky-ISIS-extremists-anti-aircraft-gun.html
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

What is a light attack plane? Article doesn't explain it.

Only thing I can guess is a cheap aircraft capable of bombing AA-less Jihadis in third world countries without costing billions of dollars to run. Isn't that roll fufilled by drones though?

yeah, AA-less Jihadis and soon maybe AA-less dissident US or French citizens.

IIRC Senator John "Insane" McCain was pushing Light Attack, since that was more or less what he was in his glory days. I feel any program from someone with a brain tumor can't be bad.

Maybe with Drones you still got too much Chain Of Command with Drones being run from USAF bases in USA, with all sorts of ROE.

This. Making something cost efficient and logistically viable certainly isn't good news, especially after the civil unrest /civil war II simulations

Basically a smaller A-10 is what they are aiming for, I think. Aircraft that just are meant to drop bombs and get out without any muh multirole capability. I think it could potentially even be a turboprop, that'd be a sight to behold.

no worries, as in my OP seems the USAF is doing what it does best…inventing ways to stall and string out the purchase of standard, almost "consumer grade", items and tacking on huge costs every step of the way.

Personally, I'd be much more scared of my own Govt using drones against me, since these LA planes will have human soldiers and even lots of grunts loading them, etc.

Make a guess. It's a (ground) attack aircraft that is lighter than usual. So not a full sized bomber or CAS plane, but a plane designed to be small and still capable of causing damage.
You got it.
Not really. Drones over Pakistan are used for long term surveillance and striking individual targets from high altitude. Their overall design (wide wings, slim body, weak engine) gives those used over there characteristics more similar to a glider.
Attack aircraft are often used to support ground troops, and as such need to be able to move fast so that the enemy won't see them coming for a long time and won't have time to react. They also need to be able to respond to troops coming under fire quickly instead of taking hours to get there.

Su-25 aren't light. Also everyone that actually didn't do menial work in that factory has long emigrated from Georgia.

It's the return of the Bronco.
Contrary to Hollywood and DoD propaganda you can't have fuel AND payload on drones, those that are armed are armed with Hellfires/Griffins for an opportunity strike but that's about it. A drone with the same capacity has a plane AND longer endurance is costing the same as a plane and is the same size. The pilots barely take any room already.

To do CAS you need something with lots of ammo (a gun, rockets pods) and the capacity to loiter to make whoever it's firing upon fuck off (sorry, "break contact").

So since we live in clown world and the US industry can deliver something that doesn't suck hundreds of millions into the void, the USAF thinks they need to go back to completely obsolete planes on which the DshkM and ZSU-23-2 (the two favorites guns of rebels anywhere) are efficient against, because if they do once those planes (that cannot possibly cost more than an average modern car to make) get the DoD rebate for family and friends would only cost a few millions per and therefore would be affordable.
Before of course they decide that the gun need 20×102mm "turbo guided precision joint programmable fuzed" rounds that will cost $10.000 a shell.

both contenders are turbo-prop based on existing 2 seat tandem trainers. one is already used by Afghan "Air Force".
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embraer_EMB_314_Super_Tucano

Eh, I think it's unlikely to actually be a turboprop if it goes through. As much as I like them they really aren't fast enough to evade common HMGs which is pretty crucial to COIN ops which is all that the US does, although the US is kinda wrapping up it's ME presence. A lighter A-10 that's just meant to carry lots of bombs, drop them and get out at supersonic (or close enough) speeds is the ideal.

Considering only two models are still in the competition and it's the Super Tucano and the T-6 Texan II, I'd say it's very likely actually.
Yes it's completely retarded, but so what?
Have you lived under a rock for those past 30 years?

Maybe "light on wallet", just buy used aircraft.

problem seems to be a LA turbo prop will become victim of HMG AAA, but a LA jet wont be able to STOL from dirt airfield or loiter as well.

Instead of F-35 cluster-fuck trying to make one airframe into both VTOL and non-VTOL……
would make more sense to "stretch" a single cost sharing airframe as "general purpose subsonic trainer, recon, liaison, light-attack, light-tanker, light-transport". Oh, and make it carrier-capable USN trainer.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_Douglas_T-45_Goshawk

but maybe twin engines if its going to be shot at and lightly armored.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yakovlev_Yak-130
put on bigger wings for more STOL and load, and carrier ops. make fuel tank behind seats removal to turn into 3 or 4 seater, or cargo and run off drop tanks. Develop cargo-drop-pods to resupply forward troops.

Light attack aircraft, according to the current demands by the USAF, are, well, light aircraft, preferably prop aircraft, that can perform CAS for ground troops. They picked props because they can go slower than jet-based aircraft, are cheaper to deploy and maintain, and have longer loitering time (in the hours range, rather than minutes), not to mention they're smaller, can fly lower and deploy armaments more accurately at low speeds, parts are easily replaceable, and can still carry a significant amount of munitions for ground support.
Drones still cost much more and don't have the specs for a larger arsenal.
Basically it's cheap air support to deal with AA-less enemy positions without having to deploy an A-10.

The M346 (Yak-130 but with Italian parts instead of Russian) was evaluated and declined.

my issue is turbo prop A-6 costs same $20 million as a twin jet Yak-130, and while 12.7mm Soviet HMG is not considered "AA" normally, it is against CAS A-6, and it only weighs 75lbs not including tripod.

I also heard that low end Soviet version of Stinger shoulder launched SAM doesn't work against approaching JET, due to jet facing aft on jet, but should work fine on approaching AND/OR departing turbo-prop due to side mounted exhaust nozzle.

They might use longer-range munitions on targets as the ground troops lase them in. They want aircraft that can stick around longer and do more (and more precise) runs per loiter. That's the main issue with jets for CAS right now, since the A-10 bingoes on fuel like 10 minutes into the AO after burning most of its fuel just to get there in time. That's about 2 runs tops.
No idea how they'll mask the turboprops on approach, though.

How much better off would Russia be today if the Soviet Union didn't deliberately move Russian industry outside of the ethnically Russian SSRs?

that sums up why IMO USAF/USN/USMC and even Army and last but not least USCG and Border Patrol could and should standardize on something like the Yak but with bigger wing.

something with refuel and tanker ability, because as a trainer guys need to practice that stuff too.

you can make a jet that can come in slow if needed but you can't make a turbo prop go fast.

Plus, the one engine really bugs me if operating low over enemy territory without armor or other defensive stuff. Turbo prop got good points but I'd want twin engine.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piaggio_P.180_Avanti Note the rear facing props and EXHAUST PIPE. The 115mph "min control speed" sounds rather high, though.

This right here is why we need to allow enlistment to fly aircraft again. I don't care if you stick them in the USAF equivalent of a TIE fighter with almost zero armor and just a big gun/engine mounted on the trainwreck. You could require enlistment to be E5 or above to fly and you would still have fucking THOUSANDS of individuals lining up to fly your shit, with no whiny officers complaining that their life might be in danger, or that they wanna be part of the "Space Force" instead. Make the skies be owned by the eternal Redneck menace as Cletus takes Lieutenant Phillip's woman into his piece-of-shit tin can that he flew through enemy AA while Lieutenant Phillip cried himself to sleep questioning why some insane country boy with double digit IQ would outclass him on the battlefield and in the bedroom. Forget the drones already; flood the fucking skies with cheap DAKADAKADAKA ZOOM in such numbers that the enemy will believe a swarm of inbred nigger locusts who barely graduated high school were coming to rain freedom on them with such ferocity that their anuses will implode into god damned diamonds from the clenching. Make the sky a beautiful shade of PUTT PUTTING iron and smoke as former farmer Joe takes pot shots with his hatch open at the enemy from inside his metal coffin.

Attached: 5927a27d023940ffbd5c2789b5feacfacb188b21acedf9848641c6cb2146dbc6.png (776x795, 933.92K)

Why don't they just bring back the Thunderbolt or the Skyraider?

Attached: ClipboardImage.png (1024x682 787.54 KB, 1.04M)

Your vision is like Kiowa pilots on steroids.

General "Not Exactly Sane But Let's Make It Rain" user, I think that idea is well sound and in need of being shoved down every wanna-be High-Speed Chair-Force Jigger that ever sunburned in an inflatable plastic pool on deck's throat! Light-Infantry leads the way! On foot or in air. Now if only we can make the Attack Choppers faster, lighter, and cheaper…then we can fill the skies with Wasps and Hornets piloted by "too-eager" types.

Attached: best lego expression ever.jpg (365x346, 14.85K)

It would just make too damn much sense, especially the A-1.
They already got a 4 seater for other options.
Its already a well proven carrier and IIRC that included catapult launch.
Last but not least they already have a turbo-prop version (with respectable 501mph top speed, about 100mph more than current prospects) and last but not least……

a rear facing exhaust pipe to prevent cheap shoulder launched SAM for locking on during before or during attack.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_A2D_Skyshark#/media/File:Douglas_A2D_Standard_Aircraft_Characteristics.png

I was just gonna say that user perfectly described what a Kiowa pilot is. The only combat aircraft where the crew will list "a combat load of 5.56" in their support options to ground troops.

Attached: oh-58d_850x-01.jpg (857x534, 130.12K)

I always thought it was pretty lame that Airborne didn't have parawings and instead were dumped like sacks of potatoes without any ability to choose landing site, which I guess is why they do drops in big open fields.

IDK the gild ratio of a parawing but I'd want an enemy to have to think "Fuck, those guys could anywhere within 20miles within 30mins" when they detect a drop happening, rather than "Oh, they all in that big field for a while".

If every soldier can choose their own landing zone they will all end up scattered or worse, end up colliding with one another. That kind of freedom is reserved for small teams.

Sauce or it never happened, frog.

Are the Kiowas any good? You guys just gifted us fucking 70 of them. The OH-58D model specifically.

Attached: 58d.jpg (2346x1898, 778.79K)

Make Deff Skwadron Great Again.

Attached: serveimage.jpg (1015x1600, 517.82K)

Isn't that basically what happens with the MH-6? I seem to remember a greentext story where some infantry Strelok got his ass pulled out of the fire by a bunch of rednecks in a Little Bird hip-firing an M-60 out the gunner door.

What would happen if one were to enlist a few thousand flight sim NEETs into Squadrons consisting of WW2 replica Stukas, Thunderbolts, Würger etc. tasked with COIN and light CAS?

It's exactly what Gazelle were.
Except the Gazelle cruise speed is above the Kiowa (and even the MH-6) top speed.
Those were piloted by NCOs that treated them exactly like WWII raid jeeps that magically hovered a few feet of the ground.

Do you want the pilot of that ultralight/paraglider thingy to lean out of the chair and pull off some kind of airborne drive by? Or is he just going to carry a box of hand grenades and throw them at ground targets?

Grenades, huh?
That made me think, I'd like to imagine light weight thrown guided munitions existed. Something like the Hunter Killer drone from Call of Duty, which after being thrown would automatically find an enemy and suicide bomb it with itself.
Something more realistic (since automated killing is still a no-no for armies) is a laser guided, rocket engine propelled grenade that has collapsing wings that expand out. Of course this is kinda retarded and would weight and size as much as a Carl Gustav which can do the same at 1000x the effectiveness and wouldn't be single use.
Vid is what it looks like in the COD game for reference.

Would a second guy with an LMG be viable? I'm imagining pic related with wings and a propeller, basically.

Attached: 380ae6a4f55cd0f5d7dee571d6bd5cda.jpg (956x634, 112.05K)

...

nah, not much more that happens when they are on foot, maybe less because they can see everyone else.

Did I mention that when on foot they have all sorts of rules and "plays" all worked out and drilled, so they don't get two or three guys in same spot, and/or don't "get lost".

I asked a civilian paraglider if it would be feasible to throw 50 guys out of an airplane and have them all land on predesignated street corners, roof tops, etc and he said "no sweat".

Arguably the greatest military victory in history, Hitler's glider attack on the Belgian fortress, worked because instead of landing on a nearby field THEN attacking, they landed ON the fortress.

Attached: __yorigami_shion_touhou_drawn_by_ikiyouz__7ec2230846988befc96d6b610ce0d3ae.png (800x600, 29.9K)

I'm thinking more like an old style cavalry that dismounts.

You'd FLY 20 miles in 40mins, including loading and launching, dismounting, instead of a brutal all night forced march, then semi-crash land on rough terrain in semi-safe spot, then hump maybe 100yrds to the fight, fight, then retreat to landing zone and hopefully re-launch.

I think with a bit of Redneck/Slave tier engineering it would be possible to fire either anti-tank missile or med MG from a para-plane. Probably need to fire missile from side to send back-blast in safe direction and not roast shroud lines.

sure, why not, but much better if rickshaw is briefly stopped.

But IIRC main point was to have a LMG team able to haul massive ammo and quickly show up to the fight with "fresh legs" and thus able to swifty carry an overload of ammo short distance on foot.

Sidecar rigs that were ordered as such from factory had solid rear axle and thus 2 wheel drive and could off-road with the best of them, but also get into smaller spaces/trails.

Very much same concept as infantry using paraplanes.

IIRC there was a NATO test program in the 80's of ultra-light as essentially you could mount all the infantry on them instead of using ground vehicles for virtually the same cost. And you could mount basic support weapons (ATGMs, MGs, MANPADs) too, 0 armor but stupid mobility.

Of course the thing was so cool and out of the box that it never left the paper.

They would fail 80% of the time.
G-force training, eyesight and following targets using your head and eyes.

not even, my IRL pilot buddies tell me simulators are pretty accurate as far as input/output, but of course a little easier without Gs, and fear of crash, and noise.

Furthermore, computers fly better than any human pilot, so it would easier to have fly-by-wire do the real targeting than not. NEETS would be directing and in communication with ground forces, but computer "supervise" flight during strafing. IIRC similar systems have long existed in certain airliners where the computer (supposedly) wont let the jet crash and will take over to ensure safe flight "envelop" regardless.

You should realize that most of air combat is still done using Eyes. If you played any sims you would know that.
Airplanes have very limited sensors for tracking targets. A radar and maybe an IR camera in the front as well as RWR antennas. The rest is up to the polit's eyes and AWACS, which can't help you once you are in a fight.
99% of the time you get a general bead on your target using radar, fly towards them, try to find them with your eyes on your shitty screen, and then have to keep track of them somehow. This is why trackIR is irreplaceable right now and nobody in their right mind is using any VR headset. The screen-door effect prevents you from seeing your target unless you are already too close. At the same time, this is why real flying training is so important for pilots. If they can't keep track of a speck on the horizon, and that speck gets behind them, they are fucked.
I seriously hope you do not want be to believe you.
True. Planes are capable of flying manouvers that would knock out the pilot easily. See Ju87 pullup assistance for a crude example.
I disagree for the reasons above. Planes know their own orientation, airspeed, altitude, air pressure and moisture. But they are otherwise almost completely blind. A plane can't look behind itself. On top of that the same difficulties that exist with self-driving cars apply to planes. They can't differentiate between an enemy plane and a fly buzzing past.
RIOs.
You mean "envelope", which is the noun.
You are thinking of ground avoidance systems (Terrain-following/avoiding radar), which can be found on military planes such as the F16 and is used to fly at very low altitudes above ground level. They are very complicated and in good weather are not as effective as a pilot, who can fly lower and faster then them.
In bad weather, or even zero-vis scenarios, they far exceed any human capability simply because radar can see through clouds to some extend, but keep in mind that TFR still follows the 1,5 safety factor for aerospace engineering. It flies 1.5 times as safe as it absolutely has to, and they too aren't perfect.
They sound an alarm, pull up some, and hand control back to the pilot as soon as they detect a situation they believe it too dangerous. On top of that they only function while flying in a straight line. They won't follow valleys automatically, yet.

They are nearly completely off the shelf Bell Jet rangers with a big optical suite and the ability to use hellfire missiles and stinger AAM's. Cheap, reliable and easy to maintain on a budget. The Jet ranger is a very common bird in any commercial field that requires rotary wing aircraft which adds to them being so inexpensive. Though I don't know why all Kiowa pilots are known for being crazy gung-ho and eager to do reckless maneuvers in combat for the hell of it. They do actually come with doors, but all of them end up being removed for the same reason. Your pic related even shows the crew with their M4s on the dash so they can take potshots at dune coons at a moment's notice.

I would say it is without a doubt one of the things burgers got right. And because of this, we aren't allowed to mention it on this board.

Attached: oh-58d-kiowa-920-69.jpg (920x769, 110.51K)

thanks for the information user, hopefully they will be used for albanian genocide soon

Attached: (You) did great.jpg (384x600, 79.34K)

They used to carry bandoliers of smoke grenades for the guys who called them in until one of those crazy fucks accidentally'd his cockpit with one. Huey door gunners used to be crazy fucks at some point in time, as in hanging out the fucking thing strapped in with bungee cords and on one occasion being on the belly of the thing refusing to go back in until he racked up some more dead gooks. Grandfather stopped flying them after running out of fuel right on touch down due to those fucks.

Redpill me on turboprop CAS aircraft

Attached: ClipboardImage.png (620x350, 383.93K)

They are what Nigger infested dictatorships that can't keep helicopters maintained use to oppress their 3rd world populations that themselves can't muster even HMG AAA defense.

I guess that is why the US Govt is interested, because that is what the USA will be soon.

...

...

Would G-force training really be necessary on subsonic prop aircraft?

does the same thing the A-10 is used for at a fraction of the cost.

the A-10 is an unrivaled tankbuster, but nowadays it's mostly just used for strafing runs and launching hellfires. using a small turboprop weapons platform gives the same capability with the advantage of lower cost and easier replacement and servicing, since they can't make A10s anymore and platforms like the Super Toucan are still being mass produced.

this is why the air force is looking at a light CAS plane. they want a low-cost workhorse to supplement their high-performace ground attacker in the same way they have the low cost multirole F16 to suppliment their high-performance F15 and F22.

you might be able to operate a whole squadron of Air Tractor 802s for the same cost as a flight of A-10s.

Attached: Paris_Air_Show_2017_Air_tractor_Longsword_left_front.jpg (2896x1944, 651.72K)

See Ju87 Abfangautomatik.
With CCIP/CCRP and guided bombs one could assume that g-training was superfluous, but far from it. Evasive maneuvers, and strafing runs can easily go up to 8g.

Not hellfires. Freaking mavericks 18+ of them!.

Last I checked the A-10C could only carry 6xAGM-65D/H in total on two TERs on stations 3 and 9. Or 2xAGM-65G/K on 3 and 9.
The other pylons aren't set up to communicate with the plane in the same way or do not have enough clearance to properly use the seeker.

How did you get the 18+ figure anyways?

this shit is just ghetto, IMO. Its like taking your mom's station-wagon to turn into anti-zombie AFV or something.
defense-studies.blogspot.com/2017/07/us-scheduled-to-deliver-2-isr-aircraft.html?m=1
However, it does hint at my concept for a true General Purpose trainer, transport, recon, CAS aircraft.

However, I'd use a twin-turbo so if one engine goes out you aren't setting down in hostile territory (my GI buddies say the primary tactic in Iraq was to knockout something, then attack the rescue mission). Most twin PISTON engine small/med aircraft can TAKE-OFF with moderate load just fine on one engine with decent runaway, so a twin turbo-prop should be even better.
Moving the engines to the wings might lose a some hard-point mounts on wings, but it frees up the nose for easy install of tracking and targeting tech that can be fiddled with in flight.
Mount a helicopter style chin turret on twin-engine transport.


Here is what could be a very-light CAS twin engine turbo DIESEL for under $500,000. I'm pretty sure a diesel will be tougher and even cheaper to operated that turbo prop.aircraftcompare.com/helicopter-airplane/Diamond-DA-42-Twin-Star/323

Here is another interesting small twin, that has twin boom and rear cargo door that open in flight for drops, etc. Under $1million.aircraftcompare.com/helicopter-airplane/OMA-SUD-Skycar/305

globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/systems/lau-88.htm

Attached: download (11)

That's exactly what I said. A TER (Tripple Ejector Rack, different name, same thing) can only be mounted on stations 3 and 9 with 3xAGM-65 missiles each for a total of 6.

In theory an A-10 should be able to carry 15 (2x3 + 9 singles).
In practice the TER for them don't actually work so at best they're loaded with 2.

More likely loadout would be 2 mavericks (on single rails that works), 2x Hydra pods (one of smoke, one of HEI the 7 tube launchers, not the big ones for helicopters), 2 Mk-82 TER (those works) to actually pack up a punch, 2 Sidewinders (again on single rail even if twin rail exists for the same reason) for self-defense and the point for a jamming pod.

If it were going to go "kill an entire soviet army worth of vehicle" and be used as a tactical bomber it can definitely carry 22 Mk-20 for a total of 5434 HEAT bomblets.

When it comes to pure truck bombing, 4 A-10 = 1 B2 payload.
Tell your friends.

No, only stores 3 and 9 can take AGMs for the reasons I stated above. The missile has to feed video data back to the planes MFCDs so the pilot can use the sensor to aim and fire it.
The maximum number of AGMs an A10 can carry is 6.

Which is why I said "in theory", from a weight POV it shouldn't be a problem.
Once you remove the propaganda, Mavericks never actually worked, only 2 hardpoints can carry them (because of an electrical impedance thing, the outer points SHOULD be capable to connect to Mavericks but can't as there is too much loss due to the cables length… yes it's that stupid as the thing was designs for just 2 hardpoints on F-4 initially).
In the same way the TER for it never worked properly you could only get one decent launch on average (which is why AFAIK there are no photos of the thing flying with those).

The A-10 main weapon is it's gun and (lots of) bombs, same way a Su-25 main armament is it's wide assortment of rockets.

Both CAN use missiles but the efficiency of those is frankly questionable.

A-10 with 2 launchers used 4000 Mavericks in 1991. IIRC more than AH-64 used Hellfires with 16 launchers.

The A-10A was wired to carry another pair of Mavericks on stations 4/8, but they weren't used operationally because the hot exhaust could fuck up the elevators (F-16s have the same issue when using triple racks, that's why most photos have only two missiles loaded).

Fucking LET them! Do you know how many problems it would solve if the army was the only branch in charge of air-land-sea warfare?!?! Just look at the marines, they're literally a microcosm of how successful that would be. The pure fact is that "military branches" are outmoded 19th century concepts.

Why not a this point they're more capitalist than we are, they would probably sell it to us. And it's an amazing airplane, like a toit little A-10. Who knows maybe someone at northorp would merge the A-10 designs with some useful su25 concepts if they were widely operated by the military.

Attached: su-25 mud.jpg (1600x1205, 212.36K)

Call an audible, scrap the A-10, give the contract to Northrop.

Attached: proxy.duckduckgo.com.jpg (800x531, 63.31K)

in addition to powered parachute borne infantry, one reason I suggest using a twin-engine transport based aircraft for CAS is to combine with paratroops (hopefully with parawings, not just potato-sack dumps) or even….wait for it…..wing mounted human pod/paratroops. Something you could stuff a combat soldier into and mount on hardpoint like 500lb bomb. I figure 500lbs is about what it will be with 200lb man, full battle gear, extra ammo, water and food, maybe couple bazooka and bicycle. Something that allows extra fast drop without injury and good control on way down for fast, on-demand, precision insertion of small numbers of troops by CAS.

its a Cessna with as much munitions as can be fit on it.

Other than technological complexity do pistons have ANY advantage over turboprops, even cost?

Ease of maintenance, fuel consumption at cruise speed.

Cover in the tech-complexity part.


Yes but turboprops "cruise speed" in nearly double the piston ones'.

piston MUCH cheaper to build than turbos, which is why not even Porsche, or even "supercar" makers etc will touch Gas Turbines.
Only Batman can afford a GT car.
pretty sure if you brouse aircraftcompare.com you will see two classes, with turbo-props costing about 3x

...

As said, it's production and maintenance costs.
Turbo engines are incredibly complex to design and manufacture. A small single turbine disk has something like 36 (or more) blades. 36 blades machined from Inconel to extremely tight tolerances and at an irregular shape. 36 extremely costly blades that have to be precision measured and hand matched with another blade to sit on the opposite side of the disk. 36 disks that have to be inspected after manufacture for any sort of failure in the material, and if the slightest failure are detected, has to be discarded.
36 blades. For one disk. Of which you require multiple for just the turbine. Then more for the compressor. And every disk needs blades of a different size, possibly with a different mounting mechanisms and a different geometry.
Then double the number of those blades and you got the total number of blades, because stator blades are required as well.

And the car was an economic failure. Who would have thought?

Reminds me of starship troopers.

I read the steve lehto chrysler turbine car book. Basically they thought the emission laws were going to look different and would focus on emissions of a different temperature versus prevalence of certain pollutants. Theoretically the only way to get decent power under the draconian laws proposed would be to have a totally different form of engine (people also looked at sarich orbital engines, atkinson cycle engines and all sorts of weird shit) but chrysler pursued the turbine as late as the mid 70s when there was no longer a real motive for it and chrysler was in the shit anyway.

Silent, space efficient, low exhaust temperature turbine engines do have important military applications, especially if they can run on anything that burns and won't clog up the pumps.
Emergency power generators or APUs are two examples.
I am sure they believed that they could get some contracts.

Gas turbines have many issues when used on teh ground
1. Poor responsiveness.
2. High fuel consumption especially on partial load (regime where cars spend 99% of teh time)
3. High air consumption and therefore vulnerability to dust.


youtube.com/watch?v=9we8FvXw2Ss


For aircraft? Fuel consumption.

how the fuck is northrop even still alive at this point? when was their last real contract? how long will they be able to hold unto the talent?

Attached: barga.webm (576x320, 5.77M)

Northrop was given the B-2 development which was the deepest moneysink until F-35 came around. Also in a desperate attempt of the congress to present themselves as totally-not-lobbyist-pawns and their Lockheeb overlords as toatally-not-a-monopoly they try to keep Northrop afloat by throwing them breadcrumbs of whatever project Lockheeb does not have the resources or experience to even pretend they are on, fe the B-21. Also living on Grumman's retirement money but that's already nearly depleted.

On a sidenote there's some sentimentality left to dictate that flying-wing designs (that are pretty much the future for anything subsonic) are a Northrop specialty/legacy.

They got the B-21 contract.

prop planes are on average slower, but pull more per unit fuel than a jet.


a propeller plane cost less to manufacture, can haul more munitions, and can take off on a shorter runway that is poorly maintained. this make them ideal bush craft but also they can be put on local airbases and cost less and provide localized air-cover.

there are three kinds of air danger ratings, light, medium, and heavy. light is a madman with two pearl hilt revolvers shooting in the air. medium is speratic machine-gun fire. heavy is true AA like a flack gun or AA missles.

a LAC can only handle light to medium safely. so if you have "Haji" hold up and need a morter team taken out, call a LAC and boom done.

local airbases are shit. It actually costs more and difficult to defend in the insurgency country than fly over it.

I doubt that tiny thing can produce enough power to work my lawn mower.
Though I am stunned that they got the thing to work. 10/10. Added the channel to my RSS feed.

the implication is that you leave from an airbase that has sufficient range and is protected enough. the lost of a LAC is minimal to its crew and more valuable Fighter/attackers.

Sandniggers and colombian jungle guerillas don't really have much in the way of AA one way or another, let alone quality MANPADs that can overcome flares.

The last big contract they got was for the Global Hawk/Triton program, which was massively profitable.

I expect the SOP against lite-attack planes will be layout a juicy target, then setup hidden HMG AA where they know the plane will be flying low and slow to go after the target, fire at plane, then dismount the HMG and jump into a hole until plane leaves.

IIRC USAAF P-51 pilots were told "do not follow a smoking FW-190 into a low altitude situation, because he is drawing you over a deadly flak gauntlet, and the smoke is fake"

I don't think they'll be able to hit something as small as a turboprop on approach, if they even hear it coming in time. They can't even hit MiG-21s, let alone A-10s nose-on as it is, and that thing's a flying tank. I honestly can't remember the last time I've heard of a plane that was shot down by hadji HMGs…
As for MANDPADs, propwash (from the actively oil-cooled prop) mixes with the exhaust/friction air so well, it's sub-100ºC by the time it reaches the tail, so I think it has a good chance. If anything more advanced was present, like dedicated SAMs, CAS wouldn't be called in either way.

you are right l forgot about these stupid fucking meme bomebers. holy shit and there goezs my respect for these fucking jews. fuck tem, they shouldnt create something that has nior right to exist.

ISIS got Soviet 57mm AAA.
dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3495947/Horrifying-video-shows-moment-Iraqi-plane-went-shot-sky-ISIS-extremists-anti-aircraft-gun.html

I'm pretty sure IR wont care about exhaust temps, or wind, etc, just exhaust NOZZLE temps as if looking at a light bulb in a storm, and unlike jet, turbo-prop may be IR trackable head-on due to way hot nozzle can be seen head-on.

IIRC, IR is "light" not actual warmth. You can see IR outdoors looking out from inside.

Also it be should pointed out speed of B-21 rollout. It shows that B-21 was black program for years probably started right after B-2 production finished.

Fun fact/

Attached: hdfgh.png (1242x1512, 3M)

In the insurgency country its much easier to maintain one well guarded airbase in controlled province than many small all around in the hot provinces and run supply convoys to them. You need large airbase anyway for supply.
You can't even establish proper security perimeter for small forward bases you would have """civilian""" goatfuckers walking around in the direct view of your crafts and prepping attacks. Bad.

Attached: alg-afghanistan-nato-jpg.jpg (750x563, 65.39K)

tbf sandniggers have the tendency to shoot straight at where the target planes is instead of ahead of it at the point where the radar-guided crosspiece tells them to


tbf sandniggers have the tendency to fly in a straight line during AA fire

That's kinda harsh. There no reason for a stealth bomber to not exist when flying wing designs are both ideal for large aircraft and stealth, especially when internal bays was a thing for heavy bombers since forever..


Who wants to bet that the B-21 will be externally identical to the B-2? Current concept of winged diamond-rhomboid seems ditching too much lifting and payload area.

Attached: hqdefault (1)

Attached: hqdefault (1)