Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The WWII-Era Plane Giving the F-35 a Run for Its Money

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • The WWII-Era Plane Giving the F-35 a Run for Its Money

    “It’s a great plane,” says recently retired Air Force Lt. Col. Shamsher Mann, an F-16 pilot who has flown A-29s. “Pilots love it. It handles beautifully, sips gas, and can go anywhere. If you want to get into the fight and mix it up with the guys on the ground, the Super T is a great platform.”
    http://motherboard.vice.com/read/low-and-slow

  • #2
    It's not a WWII era plane.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by jetsetter View Post
      It's not a WWII era plane.
      It has a propeller, it must be from WW2!
      If you tell the guys that the plane is brazilian built they'll probably faint on the spot

      Comment


      • #4
        Made its first flight on June 2, 1999, didnt know WW2 lasted that long! ROFLMAO.

        Comment


        • #5
          Well, aside from the title, I think it's a great article. I really don't get why Nato nations doesn't use this platform for CAS. You get so much for the buck. But cost effective solutions doesn't seem to interesting.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by The Dane View Post
            Well, aside from the title, I think it's a great article. I really don't get why Nato nations doesn't use this platform for CAS. You get so much for the buck. But cost effective solutions doesn't seem to interesting.
            First of all, in a shooting war with everybody's favorite baddies (China, Russia) these things would be suicidal.
            And you can't just prepare for Afghanistan style conflicts. And in today's militaries, having a small number of a specialized type is generally frowned upon, everything needs to be "joint".

            Secondly, the generals who buy this are all ex jet jockeys. They simply don't like anything that is not Mach 2 capable and smaller than a B-52
            Thirdly, in the US self same generals are afraid that if they acquire slow, useful aircraft, the Army might usurp their exclusivity on killing people from the skies over land


            The only way the US gets such planes is in small numbers for Special Forces.
            Since every kiddie likes OMFGD€ltas, Congress will bend over backwards to give them any toy they desire.

            Comment


            • #7
              I'm not suggesting that it should replace fast jet, not at all. But supplement them. And Afghan style missions must be expected in the future. They could also have played a big role in the current operation against ISIS..for cheap money.

              Comment


              • #8
                And the Marines are wishing to arm hercs to support troops.

                http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/...tankers-05409/

                Seems the old trick is better than a bagful of new ones...

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Piirka View Post
                  And the Marines are wishing to arm hercs to support troops.

                  http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/...tankers-05409/

                  Seems the old trick is better than a bagful of new ones...
                  I for one, will rather have some slow and low supporting me on the ground than some high and fast. The best thing an infantry patrol can have in support is probably an Apache. But their loiter time is very poor compared to A-29 that offers almost the same quick reaction. And can deliver a 500 pound bomb if needed.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Well one question is how expensive are training variants to buy and operate? Having then in addition some operational ones won't be as expensive due to the already existing logistical chain, compatible spare parts and they could be used for some advanced training. And for carrying jamming pods, making supply drops under radar for troops behind enemy lines, drone hunting, low altitude attacks at points with friendly AD cover or fighter cover, against airborne assaults, against amphibious assaults against enemy SF ect.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Gumiman View Post
                      Well one question is how expensive are training variants to buy and operate? Having then in addition some operational ones won't be as expensive due to the already existing logistical chain, compatible spare parts and they could be used for some advanced training. And for carrying jamming pods, making supply drops under radar for troops behind enemy lines, drone hunting, low altitude attacks at points with friendly AD cover or fighter cover, against airborne assaults, against amphibious assaults against enemy SF ect.
                      Haters will hate
                      Take a look at the numbers present. The rest shouldn't be that hard to figure out. Dirt cheap.

                      This isn't for offensive operations..

                      COIN operations..
                      Last edited by The Dane; 17-01-2016, 01:43 PM.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Imagine if Nato/ISAF had 100 Super Ts available in Afghanistan.. so much better and cheaper CAS

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by The Dane View Post
                          I for one, will rather have some slow and low supporting me on the ground than some high and fast. The best thing an infantry patrol can have in support is probably an Apache. But their loiter time is very poor compared to...
                          I'd rather just have artillery or mortars in support. The loiter time in those things is infinite and they cannot even be shot down.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Stop. No one said indirect fire should stop, but stop the stupid fire.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by The Dane View Post
                              Stop. No one said indirect fire should stop, but stop the stupid fire.
                              You said " The best thing an infantry patrol can have in support is probably an Apache".

                              Indirect fire can be quite direct. M982 Excalibur

                              Use of the Excalibur gave U.S. ground forces a precision weapon that, unlike bombs dropped from aircraft, is organic to brigade commanders and not affected by weather conditions. It brought gun artillery back into utility in urban environments without fear of collateral damage or friendly fire unguided shells would risk, sometimes being called in only 50 m (160 ft) away from infantrymen, and the greater accuracy meant less shells needed to be fired, limiting the strain on the logistics train that provides ammunition. The Excalibur debuted in Afghanistan in February 2008. In February 2012, a US Marine Corps M777 Howitzer in Helmand Province, Afghanistan, was used to fire a single Excalibur round that killed a group of insurgents at a Marine record range of 36 kilometres (22 mi).

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X