>Putting 20mm and APKWS onto a crop duster. >8,000 lbs useful load. >8+ hours loiter

>Putting 20mm and APKWS onto a crop duster
>8,000 lbs useful load
>8+ hours loiter
>2 big ass balls and surveillance radar
It's over for the A-10.

https://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/articles/2023/4/27/socoms-new-recon-aircraft-to-pack-big-punch

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

LifeStraw Water Filter for Hiking and Preparedness

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

  1. 10 months ago
    Anonymous

    I'm still wondering why they chose this over the T6 II or the Super Tucano.

    • 10 months ago
      Anonymous

      Airtractor is owned by Boeing, nuf said.

    • 10 months ago
      Anonymous

      Useful load + loiter + ISR capability.

    • 10 months ago
      Anonymous

      The Super Taco won every competition but was stonewalled by Republicans who wanted SOCOM to choose the T-6 II. AFSOC out of spite, chose a candidate that was already dropped.

      • 10 months ago
        Anonymous

        Source?

        • 10 months ago
          Anonymous

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_Attack/Armed_Reconnaissance

          >The Air Force planned to acquire approximately 100 aircraft in the RFI, but has since reduced the initial requirement to 15 aircraft. A more detailed Request for Proposals (RFP) has not been released as of September 2010.
          >In 2011 the House Armed Services Committee moved to block funding for the program until the requirements and acquisition were validated.
          >In November 2011 it was revealed that the Beechcraft AT-6B had been excluded from the competition by the USAF, leaving the Embraer A-29 the probable winner, with a contract expected to be awarded in December 2011.[13] According to GAO: “the Air Force concluded that HBDC [Hawker Beechcraft Defense Company] had not adequately corrected deficiencies in its proposal. In this regard, the agency concluded that multiple deficiencies and significant weaknesses found in HBDC’s proposal make it technically unacceptable and results in unacceptable mission capability risk”. Hawker Beechcraft's protest against its exclusion was dismissed.
          >On December 30, 2011, the USAF announced that the A-29 had been awarded the contract.[15] But the contract award was disputed and a stop-work was issued the following January.[16] All motions will be due to U.S. Court of Federal Claim by March 6, 2012.
          >The A-29 was reawarded the contract on February 27, 2013.[20][21] And Beechcraft again challenged the contract.[22] But the USAF ordered that the construction start anyway.[23] Beechcraft's allies in the Kansas Republican congressional delegation then called for the work to be stopped,[24] while Embraer's Floridan congressional allies praised the USAF's move.

          • 10 months ago
            Anonymous

            LAAR was a farce, but Armed Overwatch is a separate program to replace U-28s and MC-12s with an armed counterpart. Obviously with a strong focus on ISR capability. If we're replacing manned ISR platforms the 802 is the obvious choice.

            • 10 months ago
              Anonymous

              LAAR was a farce due to Republican interference. The program was only cancelled because AFSOC wasn't allowed to acquire the A-29. LAAR and Armed Overwatch are the same thing with a different name. Sierra Nevada never lost the competition and only removed itself when it was obvious that the Republicans were sabotaging the program in favor of the AT-6 II.

              • 10 months ago
                Anonymous

                Two MX-20s will match the AC-130J in its imagery capability as opposed to the FLIR the Tucano has. I don't see how being aerobatic is beneficial to the mission set at the expense of useful load and loiter time. A-29 is sexy and probably fun as hell to fly (Same with the AT-6) but does it have any EO imagery capability at all?

              • 10 months ago
                Anonymous

                I've been cruising around looking at pictures of different configurations of the Tucano trying looking for which systems are mounted... was having trouble finding a good one, most don't have the sensors facing the photographer. I don't think I'm as familiar with the systems as you are so it is hard for me to ID them confidently just looking at the housings. What I did find:

                Embraer's website claims that it has EO/IR capability.

                I found at least some of them have "MX-15D sensor ball by L3 Wescam" at least according to this 2019 article

                https://www.defenseone.com/business/2019/06/how-l3-technologies-culture-shifting-its-way-industrys-top-tier/157758/

              • 10 months ago
                Anonymous

                I didn't realize they carried those. MX-15s are good, but with sensors bigger is pretty much always better at the expense of much greater weight, which is where the 802's very high useful load comes in. You can find videos on youtube showing the picture difference between MX-15, MX-20, MX-25. More sensors are better too. In the article in OP, it describes how one of the three sensors in the ISR loadout (2x MX-20, 1x MX-15) could be controlled by ground players.

          • 10 months ago
            Anonymous

            >we choose the sooped up T6
            >NOOO WE WANT THE ORIGINAL T6
            >wtf no, we have this enhanced version that was purpose built for light attack
            >nooooo

            Wtf lol

            • 10 months ago
              Anonymous

              Hawker submitted the wrong aircraft to the wrong address

    • 10 months ago
      Anonymous

      Why do people think government especially acquisitions programs pick the best gear to buy? They don't, it is about ricebowls bribes kickbacks and post retirement jobs. Been that way damn near forever.

    • 10 months ago
      Anonymous

      probly cause the crop duster is a more proven frame

    • 10 months ago
      Anonymous

      >USAF picks the Super-Tucano
      US MIC reeee'd about the Super-Tucano, must buy American, Super-Tucano blocked
      >Counter-Proposal from USMIC
      was overpriced so "frick the hell off" t. Congress
      >USAF does emergency crop-duster adaptation to dunk on Boeing
      you are here

      • 10 months ago
        Anonymous

        As long as the congressional frick heads that killed the Super Tucano in the first place didn't end up winning, i'd still call it a win overall.

        Frick politicians that block military procurement for monetary or political benefits.

  2. 10 months ago
    Anonymous

    >not installing bazookas hooked to solenoids for extra frick you

    • 10 months ago
      Greased Geese

      even better, disarm the plane and just have a 50 gallon drum of rpg7 warheads on the wings and have two wingwalkers firing down.

  3. 10 months ago
    Anonymous

    Different roles.
    >It's over for the A-10 (2 hours of loiter time).
    And the F-16 is better than the A-10.

    • 10 months ago
      Anonymous

      What role does the A-10 perform if not CAS in uncontested airspace?

      • 10 months ago
        Anonymous

        The A-10 was an 1960s idea that made sense before the PGMs.

        > uncontested airspace
        Like most Attackers of its time. It's not a multirole.

      • 10 months ago
        Anonymous

        The A-10 was originally supposed to strafe Soviet tank waves while being armored enough to withstand SPAAG fire.

        In terms of COIN operations, the A-10 is ridiculous overkill.

      • 10 months ago
        Anonymous

        One preforms recon and has a couple bombs to do something funny. One is a frickload of ordnance strapped to a pair of engines and occasionally has a targeting pod to look at things so it doesn't kill friends

        • 10 months ago
          Anonymous

          >occasionally has a targeting pod to look at things so it doesn't kill friends
          Not often enough apparently

      • 10 months ago
        Anonymous

        CAS and anti-tank are what the A-10 was sold as, but does poorly at. It's best role is as a behind the lines low level, nap of the earth high speed attack aircraft that could be used to take out rear elements like artillery, command and especially parts of the supply chain stretched between units that wouldn't be as heavily defended.
        A-10s basically punch through a sector in the front lines after it's cleared by wild weasel/SEAD, get into terrain behind the front lines and then play havoc with the rear. You can't do this with helicopters because they're too slow, attack fighters fly too high to evade radar, and the enemy basically has to saturate their 'safe zones' with manpads to deal with the menace.
        But everyone just talks about 'it can't CAS' and 'it can't anti-tank,' even point out that past anti-tank aircraft never did so well, and ignore the tactical impact it has on overall operations.

        • 10 months ago
          Anonymous

          >A-10
          >high speed
          dude what?

        • 10 months ago
          Anonymous

          F-16s fly low level all the time. What makes the A-10 uniquely equipped for nap of the earth?

          • 10 months ago
            Anonymous

            If you really wanted to have a contest the A-10 is probably better due to slower speed allowing easier response times and broader wingspan giving greater stability, but they both yes are equally capable of flying incredibly low. Anon is just an idiot.

      • 10 months ago
        Anonymous

        kill bongs

    • 10 months ago
      Anonymous

      What role does the A-10 perform if not CAS in uncontested airspace?

      Also a few guys can maintain that aircraft in some shithole airbase in africa or ME. Meanwhile A10 or f16's need an army of mechs behind them

  4. 10 months ago
    Anonymous

    All it takes is one ZU-23-2 technical and it's gone.

  5. 10 months ago
    Anonymous

    been a while since your daily threads OP, good to see you're still alive. Hope you're well.

  6. 10 months ago
    Anonymous

    Ukraine

    >In August 2019, a Ukrainian military delegation visited Embraer's military division in São Paulo and flew the Super Tucano.[147] In October 2019, the President of Ukraine, Volodymyr Zelensky, in a meeting with Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro, informed that his country will buy the Super Tucano.[148] In December 2022, the Brazilian media reported a Ukrainian interest in the Super Tucano, to equip its air force for the Russo-Ukrainian War; however, the sale was blocked by the Bolsonaro administration.[149] A diplomatic effort by the United States to persuade the president-elect of Brazil, Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, to unblock the deal has been reported.[149]

    • 10 months ago
      Anonymous

      >their own governments blocks the sale
      Why are SA govs so moronic?

  7. 10 months ago
    Anonymous

    Frick a gunship, I want a 4 ship of crop dusters overhead.

  8. 10 months ago
    Anonymous

    EAGLE 20
    FOX 2

  9. 10 months ago
    Anonymous

    How would these deal with SAMs?

    • 10 months ago
      Anonymous

      The same way the AC-130 does.
      It doesn’t.

  10. 10 months ago
    Anonymous

    Armed bushplane that can carry people > helicopter

    • 10 months ago
      Anonymous

      Can land 99% of the places a helicopter can, cheaper, safer, more reliable, longer range.

      • 10 months ago
        Anonymous

        god damn that's pretty wild

      • 10 months ago
        Anonymous

        >POV
        >you can't hide from cessna bros

  11. 10 months ago
    Anonymous

    >take crop duster that is available to purchase for 1.4 million civilian
    >frick with bullshit toys and inflate gibs price to 45 million per aircraft

    • 10 months ago
      Anonymous

      Because high end ISR and targeting capabilities are actually pretty expensive.

      • 10 months ago
        Anonymous

        >believing some off shelf avionics they already have cost that much and it's not just another slush fun scam

  12. 10 months ago
    Anonymous

    Low tier aerial enemy in a Second American civil war video game. Anyone has fantasies like that?

  13. 10 months ago
    Anonymous

    How hard would a modernized skyraider be, seriously?

    • 10 months ago
      Anonymous

      >Slow as hell
      >Armed to the teeth
      >Insanely long loiter time
      >Used for COIN in uncontested environments
      Sounds like a turboprop skyraider to me.

    • 10 months ago
      Anonymous

      >How hard would a modernized skyraider be, seriously?

      >Slow as hell
      >Armed to the teeth
      >Insanely long loiter time
      >Used for COIN in uncontested environments
      Sounds like a turboprop skyraider to me.

      Harder than you think, actually. Because when it comes to procurement, you have to factor in the manufacturing process. It would be so expensive to rebuild Skyraider factories all over again and get the production line going that it wouldn't be worth it for what they do. Meanwhile, Air Tractors already have a factory up and running producing aircraft at this very moment. Hook some guns and bombs onto it, and you're good to go while keeping the price reasonable.

      The inglorious realities of procurement and logistics has always tossed been a wet blanket over many a war and weapon nerds' wet dreams.

    • 10 months ago
      Anonymous

      they already developed one
      they just need to slap some modern shit on it like every other country manages to do with these light attack/anti-insurgency aircraft

      the fricking Iraqis managed to cobble together competent light attack out of Cessna 208s

  14. 10 months ago
    Anonymous

    I don't usually post in plane threads but something I've always wondered about it "loiter time" and given its be brought up a lot here I figure this might be a decent place to ask.
    This is just basically (keep it simple for me folks) how long a plane can just circle overhead before it runs low on fuel and has to go home, correct?
    I've noticed that a lot of planes with high loiter times are prop planes, so I assume there is a connection? Like, props are more fuel efficient than jets but are slower and produce less thrust?
    If that is the case, why are the big modern awacs planes using jet engines instead of props? I though loiter times on those were a big deal?

    • 10 months ago
      Anonymous

      As the size of the plane increases, turbofans start becoming more efficient, especially if you want them flying higher in the atmosphere where their sensors can get maximum effect. Also, that's why most AWACs planes are built using the same airframe as passenger jets, because they're already designed from the ground up to be as ridiculously fuel efficient as possible.

    • 10 months ago
      Anonymous

      Prop planes can only go so high, not to mention you said it yourself, "thrust" a prop plane of that size requires more engines, couple with the fact you still want your AWACS to be on station relatively quickly.

    • 10 months ago
      Anonymous

      Propellers needs far larger diameter and only works well for speeds below 600km/h.
      As you increase the power and speed they have too many trade offs.

      Glide ratio is more important than raw efficiency, but in general you get better glide ratios at lower speeds, unless you go very high like the globalhawk.

      >long, thin have better glide ratio, see gliders but if the airplane cruise speed is lower the weight limit is too low to make it useful

      • 10 months ago
        Anonymous

        >long, thin wings

      • 10 months ago
        Anonymous

        Glide ratio is equivalent to L/D ratio. Which is literally aerodynamic efficiency at creating lift.

        As the size of the plane increases, turbofans start becoming more efficient, especially if you want them flying higher in the atmosphere where their sensors can get maximum effect. Also, that's why most AWACs planes are built using the same airframe as passenger jets, because they're already designed from the ground up to be as ridiculously fuel efficient as possible.

        It’s not so much the size of the plane but the altitude regime it operates in. Turboprops are great at lower altitudes. At middle altitudes, high bypass turbofans are best. Think airliners. High altitudes, low bypass turbofans are best. Think private jets, fighters and the U-2.

  15. 10 months ago
    Anonymous

    Nice to see they've ordered plenty

  16. 10 months ago
    Anonymous

    why not just use drones instead?

  17. 10 months ago
    Anonymous

    >A-10 cost
    >17 million dollars
    >a crop duster with some stuff bolted onto it
    >40 million dollars
    >/k/ will unironically defend this

    • 10 months ago
      Anonymous

      Consider those are 1977 dollars. And cost per flight hour is north of $10,000 for the A-10. OA-1K is ballpark $1,000 per hour.

      • 10 months ago
        Anonymous

        Cost for the aircraft: less than 3 millions.
        Cost for the militarization adds on, avionics, optics, development, etc. That the extra cost.

        An A-10 new with equivalent avionics would be far more expensive.

        the sky tractor is pretty expensive for what it is

        • 10 months ago
          Anonymous

          Well, it's a turboprop crop duster and quite popular worldwide.
          Turboprops aren't cheap compared to a smaller Lycoming/Continental.

    • 10 months ago
      Anonymous

      Cost for the aircraft: less than 3 millions.
      Cost for the militarization adds on, avionics, optics, development, etc. That the extra cost.

      An A-10 new with equivalent avionics would be far more expensive.

  18. 10 months ago
    Anonymous

    Sounds like a great way to eat a MANPADS.

  19. 10 months ago
    Anonymous

    Since this is is now in part an A-10 thread seemingly:
    Still pulling for the adaption of the A-10 as the Seahog carrier ASW. Replace the gun with a MAD prode, unfrick the landing gear, the wings are already predisposed to be converting into folding, and just strap a unch of sonobuoy pods and shit.

    • 10 months ago
      Anonymous

      >wings are already predisposed to be converting into folding
      ??????

      • 10 months ago
        Anonymous

        There are no internal structural elements as they are designed to be completely hollow (hold fuel and more durable)

    • 10 months ago
      Anonymous

      This has to be about the goofiest idea I have ever heard on this board.
      ...and the more I think about it the more sense it makes.

  20. 10 months ago
    Anonymous

    I will die mad about this "beating" the super tucano.

  21. 10 months ago
    Anonymous
  22. 10 months ago
    Anonymous

    for me, it's the Pucara

    • 10 months ago
      Anonymous

      You know deep down OV-10 is better.

  23. 10 months ago
    Anonymous

    That thing moves at 200 km/h its so slow that it can be hit with ATGMs.

  24. 10 months ago
    Anonymous

    i thought they picked the T-6?

    I'm glad they went with the air tractor though. it looks a lot cooler.

  25. 10 months ago
    Anonymous

    I wonder how it will be used. I always thought bush planes would have been a good tool for Afghanistan. Not sure if they were used. I imagine this is something for FACs and the like to use but it has an armament in case it needs to drop something on a dhsk or ZU-23. I’m also if curious if they experimented with something more capable of carrying passengers and landing in remote areas. Idk

Leave a Reply to Anonymous Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *