Or an A-1 "Spad"/"Sandy". Which, upgraded with a turbo prop and new avionics, would not a be a Bad Thing.
Or even an A-37, a strengthened and re-engined version of the T-37. Use new commercial engines and modern off the shelf avionics.
Posted on 12/30/2011 7:38:59 PM PST by sukhoi-30mki
An A-10 would play with these things like Tonka Toys..
This is part of the next phase in the “Freedom For War” plans. State Dept Publication 5277. No one coutry will have weapons and capability to defeat the world army. Each country will have lesser capability equipment to deal with internal issues, but they won’t be good enough to take out the world army.
The shifting process has been in process for years. Militarizing police have all been part of it as well.
P-51s are now historic museum pieces. The tooling is long gone. The Super Tucano is a good airplane for it’s projected tasking.
According to an article I saw on Air-Attack about a year ago, the Brazilians may now pony up and acquire the Super Hornet from M-D. I still have trouble using the B word with something built in St. Louis.
The final assembly line for the A-29 will be in Jacksonville, FL. Good place to live.
Or an A-1 "Spad"/"Sandy". Which, upgraded with a turbo prop and new avionics, would not a be a Bad Thing.
Or even an A-37, a strengthened and re-engined version of the T-37. Use new commercial engines and modern off the shelf avionics.
Two problems
A-10’s are tough as they can be. Redundant systems, twin turbofans protected by armor and twin-stabilizers, fully armored cockpit. And we still lost some in Iraq to ground fire, but that was sophisticated anti-aircraft fire.
The L.A.S. planes cannot stand up to any modern anti-aircraft fire or simple shoulder fired misssiles. They will be brought down by AK-47’s when attacking at low levels.
I pray no American boys will ever have to fight in them.
PS, I like the way they look. Their price is reasonable. They can haul a far amount of ordinance. They will do great in war games and practice. But, in hot conflict, they will prove to be death-traps.
P-47, Corsairs and A-1’s were all more battle hardened.
the radials could take some hits and get back. The pilots were well protected, too.
Oldplayer
P-51’s had thier place in Vietnam. These guys would be excellent over here.
douglas skyraiders
Now that is an UGLY aircraft (OV-10)!
If it is used in low intensity environments, the biggest threats would be rifle fire and maybe man portable anti aircraft missiles. Countermeasures might provide some level of protection against missiles, but I would still be concerned about missions that would require flying low enough to get hit by a bunch of bad guys wildly shooting AK 47’s in the air. Maybe this plane has more of a stand off mission, but I still have questions about the ability of turboprops to withstand damage from 7.62mm fire.
“Would’ve been cool to have an AK-47 back during the fall of the Roman Empire too, eh?”
Or like The Greaseman routines, “Back in time with an Uzi.”
“Would have been nice to have these suckers in WWII.”
I assume you mean for the axis? They have just one 20mm cannon, and are utterly and hopelessly outclassed by any Mustang, Thunderbolt, Corsair or Hellcat. Likewise for anything the axis put up.
It is even much more lightly armed and much slower than a Wildcat, a P-40, or a P-39.
This thing is a joke. What we need are Warthogs.
Why can’t the engine be placed in the rear with a swept blade propeller to reduce risk of the blades touching ground?
“Yep.
Would’ve been cool to have an AK-47 back during the fall of the Roman Empire too, eh?”
LOL, reminds me of the old SNL skit, “What if Napoleon had a B-52 at the battle of Waterloo?”
“Why not use Mustangs—they would be cheaper.”
And faster, and more heavily armed too. The turboprop is easier maintenence, but this thing can only operate in a permissive air environment. (quite an assumption in an era of “Super” Hornets, F-35s, and around 100 F-22s.) While our fighter are good electronically and information wise, the fact is that they are slower, shorter legged, and less capable than anything we have ever built. They are much slower than most competitors.
And resting on electronics and stealth is idiotic. We are saddled with these dogs for 30 years. Meanwhile, the rest of the world will soon catch up in stealth and electronics, with much faster and longer ranged machines.
So your jet has eight rockets and there are 5,000 of these little bastards. What are you going to do?
“it will operate in the low-threat counter insurgency role below the A-10 and has better endurance and lower operating costs than the latter.”
But it only carries 5 hardpoints lifting about 3000 lbs of weapons. It has no refueling capability, so that endurance will mean at least one is carrying fuel. Now he’s down to 4. The Warthog is 200mph faster, which if you are a grunt, matters greatly. It carries 11 hardpoints lifting 18,000 lbs. And the A-10 can refuel,, so it’s endurance is only limited by running out of weapons.
While it’s fine for third world countries to shoot at lightly armed rebels with, the Super Tucano is nothing the USA truly needs.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.