/k/ - Weapons

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?

>>662356

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.

>>662361

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

>>662356

>What is a light attack plane?

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.

>>662364

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.

>>662356

>Article doesn't explain it.

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.

>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.

You got it.

>Isn't that roll fufilled by drones though?

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.

>>662351

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

>>662356

>aircraft capable of bombing AA-less Jihadis in third world countries without costing billions of dollars to run.

It's the return of the Bronco.

>Isn't that roll fufilled by drones though?

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.

>>662371

both contenders are turbo-prop based on existing 2 seat tandem trainers. one is already used by Afghan "Air Force".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embraer_EMB_314_Super_Tucano

>>662380

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.

>>662384

>Eh, I think it's unlikely to actually be a turboprop if it goes through

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?

>>662375

>>>662351 (You) (OP)

>

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

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

>>662384

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.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_Douglas_T-45_Goshawk

>>662392

but maybe twin engines if its going to be shot at and lightly armored.

https://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.

>>662356

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.

>>662401

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

>>662417

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.

>>662447

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.

>>662351

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

>>662458

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.https://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.

>>662511

Your vision is like Kiowa pilots on steroids.

>>662522

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

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.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_A2D_Skyshark#/media/File:Douglas_A2D_Standard_Aircraft_Characteristics.png

>>662511

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".

>>662547

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.

>>662375

>everyone that actually didn't do menial work in that factory has long emigrated from Georgia.

Sauce or it never happened, frog.

>>662511

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?

>>662585

>>662544

>>662511

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.

>>662351

>How about ULTRA-light attack?

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?

>>662612

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.

>you'll never get to see a modernized P-38 that does air to ground murdering cost effectively

>>662558

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.

>>662612

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.

>>662627

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.

>>662612

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.

>>662595

They would fail 80% of the time.

G-force training, eyesight and following targets using your head and eyes.

>>662662

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.

>>662663

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.

>my IRL pilot buddies

I seriously hope you do not want be to believe you.

>Furthermore, computers fly better than any human pilot

True. Planes are capable of flying manouvers that would knock out the pilot easily. See Ju87 pullup assistance for a crude example.

>so it would easier to have fly-by-wire do the real targeting than not.

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.

>NEETS would be directing and in communication with ground forces

RIOs.

>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.

>envelop

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.

>>662544

>>662691

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.

>>662723

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.

>>662676

> A plane can't look behind itself.

>>662729

>trusting an F35 sales rep

>trusting a computer animation

>>662662

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

>>662772

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.

>>662775

>A-10

>hellfires

>>662775

>and launching hellfires

>hellfires

Not hellfires. Freaking mavericks 18+ of them!.

>>662789

>18+

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.

http://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.https://www.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.https://www.aircraftcompare.com/helicopter-airplane/OMA-SUD-Skycar/305

>>662845

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.

>>662847

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.

>>662857

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.

>>662857

>In theory an A-10 should be able to carry 15 (2x3 + 9 singles).

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.

>>662860

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.

>>662916

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

>>662803

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).

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.

>>662356

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

>>663265

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

>>663529

Ease of maintenance, fuel consumption at cruise speed.

>>663541

>Ease of maintenance

Cover in the tech-complexity part.

>>663541

>fuel consumption at cruise speed.

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

>>663529

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 https://www.aircraftcompare.com you will see two classes, with turbo-props costing about 3x

>>663599

>>663529

As >>663599 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.

>>663600

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

>>663152

Reminds me of starship troopers.

>>663615

>>663600

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.

>>663631

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.

>>663599

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.

>>663615

>Turbo engines are incredibly complex to design and manufacture.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9we8FvXw2Ss

>>663529

For aircraft? Fuel consumption.

>>663851

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.

>>663851

>when was their last real contract?

They got the B-21 contract.

>>663529

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

>use a jet to be fast

>use a prop to haul shit around

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.

>>663968

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

>>663832

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.

>>664108

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.

>>662504

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.

>>663851

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

>>664186

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"

>>664322

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.

>>663960

>>663889

>>664211

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.

>>664336

ISIS got Soviet 57mm AAA.

https://www.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.

>>663851

>>663889

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.

>>664336

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

>>664368

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

>>664407

to fly over one province is close for an airbase.

>>664669

The Javelin is a light squad level ATGM that replaced the Dragon. The TOW is a heavy ATGM deployed in specific teams. Completely different weapon systems with different roles. The F/A-18 family, F-16, and F-15 don't have hellfire capability and as far as I know the only thing firing those aside from helicopters are drones and the F-35.

>>664669

>a turbodiesel would not be better

depends on scale

>>664693

Javelin got 4 km range upgrade and now is offered as missile for AFV's RWS.

>>664669

I'm thinking a piston engine aircraft will be a lot cheaper to BUY, so if its gonna be in high-risk, rugged job, where its likely to be "totaled" not just from enemy action while flying, but maybe cracked up landing, airfield attacked, etc, lower price could be a factor with shorter lifespan.

Without much armor, and generally bad operating environment, I'd want two engines. I remember hearing about a guy with a twin Piper in Mid West that had an engine problem. He just used the remaining engine to fly it to "the shop" a couple hundred miles away, because bring a real mechanic, and shop, to Bumfuck, North Dakota was not doable.

>>664693

>The Javelin is a light squad level ATGM that replaced the Dragon.

Except it isn't.

Javelin have to be deployed in teams similarly to TOWs, the POS is so heavy it's utterly impossible for a sole soldier to carry it and it's own combat load.

A Javelin is 50 pound system for a 23 pounds missile.

To compare with the M47 dragon (30lb for a 25lb missile).

Note that the Dragon was an improvement compared to the previous M67 90mm RCR that was widely considered too heavy at '37.5 lb to be used by the infantry and that was in an era were "flack jackets" were just that and only weighted around 8 pounds.

The result is that a Javelin team is 3 to 4 guys with their vehicle, same as a TOW.

And before you go "a TOW is 200lb" look up a photo of it and it's RIDICULOUS mount that look like some WWI coastal gun mount or something, that's where most of the weight comes from.

Add the extended range and the result is those are de facto in the same class even if they were meant to be different.

>>664420

Still, knowing it's coming doesn't help much when you can't lock on to it with guided missiles and it does not have to fly over a target to bomb it. USA has to rely on cucknadian F-18s/F-35 which the Tu-160 can easily outrun and the Mig-31, Russia's only plane that can reliably catch up on incoming threats from the vast Siberian north, does not have a functional gun.

>>665172

I gotta 1st gen version of this. https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0080736/

I can easily tell the diff between "warm or very warm" (car's hood or motorcycle engine) and "hot" (stove burner, camp fire).

I don't think it would be any problem 2nd tier tech power like Russia to have IR missile lock on to Stealth bomber's "cooled" exhaust and ignore flares, and ignore things that are not following a flight path that a big bomber is able to.

How easy would that be? There was a "rainy day game" we'd play in school called "race cars" where we'd draw race-course on graft paper and you chart your course but can only increase or decrease speed/direction by two squares each move.

Big problem I see with billion-dollar Stealth Bombers is they cost so much you can't have very many, and they need to be kept on well known bases, so its easy to keep track of them with spies, and you only need to defend against a few, and you got lots of time since they are so slow.

>>664928

The TOW missile alone weighs as much as a Javelin in its launcher.

>>664700

not really. while turbine engines don't really scale down well the maintenance and reliability advantages remain. and they're still going to have a better power to weight ratio than a comparable piston engine. but if all you need is a cheap small engine for your expendable drone, then yes, you're better off with a generic weed whacker engine than a small turbine due to the cost of materials.

>>664693

the Javelin was intended to replace the TOW in the infantry role, while the TOW would continue in vehicle applications.

with the A3 model bradley IFV they got an upgrade to where the fire control system is compatible with Javelins.

with the aforementioned range upgrade to the javelin it is capable of fully replacing the TOW, they DON'T replace the TOW, though. because reasons.

>>662351

Propellers planes in 2019? Sacred Blue!

>>671330

EA-6B

>maximum speed 1300+ km/h

>stall speed with flaps less than 160 km/h (for comparison the median modern fighter's is 250 km/h, and the F-14's 213 km/h)

>on turbojets

Pretty impressive.

>>671478

>>671330

>fast

>also able to not fast at low altitude

>insane payload

>mature technology

that's why they'll never make a new one.

>>671608

prob was its kinda SAM bait, and even AAA bait.

Its too big and slow with no after burners to have a prayer trying to juke any SAMs, even the ones that a good insurgent group might have 3rd hand Soviet.

But it does sorta seem like an A-6 would be cheaper and more robust than these new fly-weight LA at $20 million, and they are also SAM and AAA bait, but even slower and much more fragile, and less capable.

>>671611

and who can forget the A-6 that cut the 1" steel cable of the Italian gondola, sending a score of Wops to overdue screaming deaths. :)

Fucking Dagos got their panties in a bunch because the A-6 was flying like a raped ape at treetop level through their mountains in training mission. Sorry, Euro-fags, real men need to train in real conditions, to defend your faggy nation. I imagine the Italian Airforce is 98% primping in their "fly boi" uniforms and 1.5% graft and 0.5% flying.

>>671478

Dont forget its got a huge nose and room for electronics, so it's an all weather bomber. Only two countries have bombers which can drop bombs in a hurricane and hit their target.

>>671614

don't the E version got four seat layout? IIRC they took out internal fuel, but I guess still has good range with drop tanks, and since it ain't carrying all those big bombs.

>>671613

Only three wops got it. Majority was a bunch of krauts, followed by waffles.

>>671611

to be fair literally anything that flies high is SAM bait, and anything that flies low is AAA bait.

especially in vietnam where they arranged their air defence assets specifically to lure american planes into kill zones by putting their SAM sites out in the open with seemingly no defense and then concentrating their AAA in the most likely avenue of approach, causing american pilots to fly right into walls of flak.

we've developed a lot of weapons and TTPs to counter both SAMs and AAA to where it's a little more even.

>>671619

the A-6E model is just an A-6A with improved electronics.

there was also the proposed A-6F and G models, which would have F404 turbofans for logistical commonality with the Hornet, and the ability to launch AIM-120 missiles.

to be honest you don't need four people to crew an attacker, four people helps when you're doing electronic warfare, but with modern automation two is fine.

the biggest advantage to this platform in modern days is that you can have one guy who's only job is flying the plane and the other guy just handling the targeting and weapons.

kind of like a AC-130, only instead of a 40mm cannon you're directing laser and TV guided missiles onto people in the dead of night.

>>671478

>>671330

>>671608

I have to admit that the A-6 was never among my favs of the A- series but here's another impressive fact that did not look like it. Though its cruise speed at 770 km/h is barely above mediocre, its top speed at sea level is over 1000km/h, for comparison 1500km/h is the top speed for the fastest modern fighters with afterburner at this altitude, MiG-31 included.

>>671799

seems like taking out a seat more trouble than its worth, especially for a 'Nam mission. You don't need an extra 30mph top speed, but you'd need an extra guy to look at maps and coordinate where you were gonna bomb over the radio as situation changed. Like take a representative of the ground force along for the ride so he could tell you where Gooks be hiding, etc.

Often the "back seater" in an F-4 would be the senior "brains of the operation".

>>672353

And that's probably why only a mock-up of the single-seat a-6 was ever produced.

>>673081

I'm sure A-10 spots will still be officers only.

IMO problem is USAF LCAS turbo props cost over $20M, or 1/2 of adjusted cost of A-10.

1/2 cost for 1/4 the effectiveness (even considering how important it might be to have more planes in more areas) but more importantly I'd guess 1/10 the psychological/moral impact of an A-10.

I can hear it already, some rebels laughing about the "little plane, we shoot and he fly away" vs a Flying Tank carrying an unholy load of massive bombs.

Rather than $20+M for LCAS that will be afraid of light AAA, maybe something like this that could carry same standoff missiles, but has twin engines and can also carry 17 paratroopers and/or do other airdrops and cargo missions (including large objects via rear clamshell doors), could serve as CIRCLING gunship like DC-3 rather than "strafe, then leave", for much cheaper than turbo-prop fighter bomber.https://m28aircraft.com/generalInformations

Already used by US Special Forces, for jump training I assume.

>>673081

Are you sure you even want it? Flying that piece of shit is a job, a hard and low paying one. Try flying it in a simulator. Do it all day every day, for several hours at a time. Be prepared to share your line of duty with a bunch of redneck-minded individuals, too. There's a good reason why A-10 pilots get all the piss for friendly fire incidents.

>>673096

That's not how it works. Half the cost means half as much money to embezzle. I reckon effectiveness will actually be much better on account of having same specs but greater loiter time.

>b-but it's not the iconic brrt

Only retard amerimutts care about things like that. Normal people care about its ability to push enemy's shit in.

>>673148

After being an armorer for 4 years I want something where I can see for myself physically helping out the guy's on the ground. Sure At this point I'm pretty sure America's war chances are relatively low. Muh middle east aside but I still want to do something. As for dealing with rednecks, I'm not worried. It's nothing I haven't seen before, God knows I'm used to seeing people from all walks of life already, so what's a few more?

>>673149

While I certainly don't question that a turboprop would have some decent loiter time, my question is will it have the armor and armament to stick around long enough to make the difference? Even though I love the 30mm, I'm also honestly fine with the idea of using a turboprop, provided it still has some type of cannon for shredding vehicles as well as bombs, missiles, etc. But it has to Last long enough to do that, and I feel a propeller finding some stray bullets could adversely affect that ability. I'm sure there's ways to help that out but I just feel it's a really noticeable point of failure.

>>673146

exactly, but with host of improved features:

a)high wing and engines, to provide wider field of fire for door gunners and as M28 add says "protect from debris on rough fields".

b)vastly improved STOL ability.

c)rear clam-shell doors for easy loading, and air-drop, of large items.

d)rear clam-shell doors for "keep shooting at them while leaving"

e)burns jet-fuel/diesel, like everything else the army owns, not hi-test 100-octane Avgas.

Specs very much similar to DC-3, with M28 being about 20% smaller and faster. Does kinda make one wonder where all the "progress" of last 50 amazing years in aircraft design went.

>>673149

>I reckon effectiveness will actually be much better on account of having same specs but greater loiter time.

Agree about the Loiter Time (LT) being the most important factor. Even lightest plane carrying a few missiles is already overkill for most LCAS, its all about waiting them out and "just being there". Thats one big reason why I'd consider a civy transport derived plane with two nice big side-by side seats up front and a mobile home in the back with toilet, fridge, cots, and microwave, so one crew can get some rest and they can trade off and keep one plane in the air and on station 20 out of 24hrs 7days a week if needed.

>>673200

PS-I hear one reason the AC-47 Spooky was effective is that unlike other fixed wings, that did a straffing run then gave enemy known "safe time" until next run, the Spooky could keep guns trained on target area non-stop for hours, circling. And unlike chopper it could stay in air for hours, with lot less hanger time.

>>673188

A steel prop is tough enough to take direct hit from a 30mm and not disintegrate, and that's if it actually connects - a rotating prop is 95% empty space and only 5% prop blades. Jet turbines don't compare favorably to this. Also, rotary gun is not the only type of cannon design that uses 30mm, not the only one capable of rapid fire either. It is certainly one of the most inefficient ones, though - size, weight, and ammo wastage.

>>673225

>Also, rotary gun is not the only type of cannon design that uses 30mm, not the only one capable of rapid fire either. It is certainly one of the most inefficient ones, though - size, weight, and ammo wastage.

IIRC USAAF did studies and found "wasting ammo" (high rate of fire) was vital because it reduced the time you were vulnerable (needing to stay on a fixed path, and everyone knows it) as well as better chance of doing enough damage to target in dog fight were you will have only fraction of second's worth of "connecting".

>>673526

The Army wanted something better, combining extremely high rate of fire with exceptional reliability.[citation needed] In 1947, the Air Force became a separate branch of the military. The new Air Force made a request for a new aircraft gun. A lesson of World War II air combat was that German, Italian, and Japanese fighters could attack American aircraft from long range with their cannon main armament. American fighters with .50 cal main armament, such as the P-51 and P-47, had to be close to the enemy in order to hit and damage enemy aircraft. The 20mm Hispano cannon carried by the P-38 and P-61, while formidable against propeller-driven planes, had a relatively low rate of fire in the age of jets, while other cannons were notoriously unreliable.

In response to this requirement, the Armament Division of General Electric resurrected an old idea: the multi-barrel Gatling gun. The original Gatling gun had fallen out of favor because of the need for an external power source to rotate the barrel assembly, but the new generation of turbojet-powered fighters offered sufficient electric power to operate the gun, and electric operation was more reliable than gas-operated reloading.[2] With multiple barrels, the rate of fire per barrel could be lower than a single-barrel revolver cannon while providing a greater overall rate of fire. The idea of powering a Gatling gun from an external electric power source was not a novel idea at the end of World War II, as Richard Jordan Gatling himself had done just that with a patent he filed in 1893,[3] with the similar, but powered either by the aircraft engine or an electric motor, 12-barreled Fokker-Leimberger aircraft rotary machine gun under development during World War I by the German Empire.

In 1946, the Army issued General Electric a contract for "Project Vulcan", a six-barrel weapon capable of firing 7,200 rounds per minute (rpm).[4] Although European designers were moving towards heavier 30 mm weapons for better hitting power, the U.S. initially concentrated on a powerful 0.60-inch (15 mm) cartridge designed for a pre-war anti-tank rifle, expecting that the cartridge's high muzzle velocity would be beneficial for improving hit ratios on high speed targets.[citation needed]

The first GE prototypes of the 0.60-inch (15 mm) caliber T45 were ground-fired in 1949; it achieved 2,500 rpm, which was increased to 4,000 rpm by 1950. By the early 1950s, the USAF decided that high velocity alone might not be sufficient to ensure target destruction and tested 20 mm and 27 mm alternatives based on the 0.60-inch (15 mm) caliber cartridge. These variants of the T45 were known as the T171 and T150 respectively, and were first tested in 1952. Eventually, the standard 20×102 mm cartridge was determined to have the desired balance of projectile/explosive mass and muzzle velocity, resulting in an optimum balance of range, accuracy and kinetic energy on target.[5]

The development of the Lockheed F-104 Starfighter revealed that the T171 Vulcan (later redesignated M61) suffered problems with its linked ammunition, being prone to misfeed and presenting a foreign object damage (FOD) hazard with discarded links. A linkless ammunition feed system was developed for the upgraded M61A1, which subsequently became the standard cannon armament of U.S. fighters.[6]

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/26279/top-usaf-generals-latest-excuses-for-delaying-light-attack-program-just-dont-make-sense

https://www.defensenews.com/air/2019/05/17/us-special-ops-command-at-odds-with-air-force-over-need-for-light-attack-aircraft/

>>674380

We've already got guys in Nigeria, dude. Boko Haram.

>>673526

>missile takes 17 seconds to acquire a stationary helicopter at relatively close range

Way to prove the other guy's point. Even the relatively sluggish A-10 could easily strafe that position and be out of range before he can shoot back.

>>674483

Tbf it ain't easy to track a manpad in under 20 secs given that most of them use passive (IR) targeting. Maybe against the javelin that uses Lazors.

>>674494

I know the swedes have a MANPADS that's laser guided and its used by the Aussies and a couple other countries I think.

>>674515

It's fairly common on SHORADs, the swedish thing is like the brit Starstreak or french Mistral, it's being marketed as a MANPAD but it's not, it needs a mount and a vehicle to carry it but you can dismantle it and lug it around if you want to but it's not really the same concept as the Stinger/all the Russian ones.

Laser guidance makes it virtually un-jammable and is fairly hard to detect by conventional means too.

Note the against helicopter most regular ATGM works especially wire-guided SACLOS ones.

>>673526

>>>673522 (You)

>

>>modern AAA

>

>>caring about fixed path

IIRC "fixed path" is still a factor with even super-sonic CAPABLE jets needing to due sub-sonic low level bomb and air-to-surface missile attacks where they might be old skool AAA artillery lurking about.

You want to be juking and jiving, and planning how you gonna slip into a very brief attack-run, and let loose the 100rpm Vulcan for 1 or 2 seconds, then break hard away. In contrast, a 5 or 10 second run would be very risky.

>>675525

It depends a lot on the type of AAA you're facing. A lot of SPAAG are accurate enough to take out cruise missiles, artillery shells, anti tank missiles… which can dodge and weave a lot faster than a jet. Also many have missiles which are purpose built to take out aircraft flying nap of earth.