|
IIRC part of the Super Tucano idea was that the USAF was going to buy them, train the Iraqis on them, operate them together, and then give them all the airframes. That wouldn't really work with F-35s. I think that was really the big push behind the Super Tucano deal because now that we're out of Iraq the entire purchase plan seems to have vanished.
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2013 13:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 17:05 |
|
|
LP97S posted:Not kill it's pilots? The F35 has killed pilots? quote:Cost less is pretty much the big thing. You don't really cross shop the two. Well they're not being cross shopped because the F35 is already in the garage, it's not an either/or thing. The Super Tucano would have to be doing something that the F35 can't do...... quote:Loiter. ....is that really true? I thought being a bomber in a benign enviroment was one of the design goals of the F35?
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2013 13:50
|
|
|
LP97S posted:Not kill it's pilots? Wrong plane. e;f;b
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2013 13:55
|
|
|
Throatwarbler posted:....is that really true? I thought being a bomber in a benign enviroment was one of the design goals of the F35? I'm sure this glosses over some complexities, but what extra design (beyond that of any other multirole plane) is needed for a benign environment bomber? Isn't it just a case of bolting on as many bombs as you have hard points?
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2013 14:05
|
|
|
Throatwarbler posted:doing something that the F35 can't do...... Wait, are you actually asking what a prop aircraft does that a jet aircraft does not? I'm confused. Light prop-driven attack aircraft are currently intended to fit a loitering ground attack role in environments where air-to-air threats do not exist and surface-to-air threats are unlikely. Super Tucanos run around $10-$12 million depending on options and are intended to run at an operational flight-hour cost of like $500, which compared with any jet aircraft is nothing. I think F-18 is supposedly somewhere near $10K/hour to operate and the F-22 & F-35 are far more. Central & South American governments are using A-29s to gently caress up irregulars and rebels to somewhat good effect with relatively simple ordnance at around 5% of the cost of an F-35A. USAF is fully aware of it and was looking into doing the same thing, either with a Super Tucano or with a weaponized variant of current T-6 trainers.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2013 14:06
|
|
|
Throatwarbler posted:The F35 has killed pilots? Strike and CAS are not the same thing. Also, if your mission goal is bomb truck for a permissive environment, then why the hell is the thing (kinda) stealthy? If you have to hang all the ordnance required to accomplish the mission outside the LO portion of the fuselage, thereby loving the RCS, then all the effort you spent making it stealthy is wasted, when performing that mission. They've managed to build an aircraft that does everything an F-16 will, for six times the cost.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2013 14:09
|
|
|
Every jet after the Meteor is a waste, and unsporting.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2013 14:12
|
|
|
Vindolanda posted:Every aircraft after the Fokker Dr.I Dreidecker is a waste, and unsporting. FTFY
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2013 14:30
|
|
|
Operating Rod posted:Wait, are you actually asking what a prop aircraft does that a jet aircraft does not? I'm confused. Well South American governments don't have F35s, the US doesn't face the same kind of issues. Just because the prop aircraft can do some things for cheaper doesn't mean it's a good idea to buy them, since you now have to maintain them train and certify pilots, and all kinds of stuff, on the off-chance that a specific scenario comes up that might be useful, while those F35s are still going to be bought and flown regardless. Maybe it will save some money if the future scenario works out the way you intend, but to me it's not a sure thing. MrYenko posted:Strike and CAS are not the same thing. Because the plane is already there so why not?
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2013 14:39
|
|
|
If the LO features are mostly a design-side problem not beholden to massively increased procurement cost and maintenance, it'd be worth building the JSF. Consequently, its kick-in-the-doorability, something which would have come in p. handy at least four times during the last 30 years, would make it a sound proposition. Or at least that was the plan. Now the F-35 is here and not going anywhere so let's just wait and see how those metrics pan out.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2013 14:51
|
|
|
Also the US has a bad tendency to get involved in Spreading Democracy in places where it's a lot easier to get one's hands on a MANPAD.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2013 14:51
|
|
|
Throatwarbler posted:Well South American governments don't have F35s, the US doesn't face the same kind of issues. Just because the prop aircraft can do some things for cheaper doesn't mean it's a good idea to buy them, since you now have to maintain them train and certify pilots, and all kinds of stuff, on the off-chance that a specific scenario comes up that might be useful, while those F35s are still going to be bought and flown regardless. Maybe it will save some money if the future scenario works out the way you intend, but to me it's not a sure thing. I think you are profoundly misunderstanding how procurement for LAS was being done and what LAS was for. The whole idea was that the LAS program would enable the US to loan (or sell) equipment to Afghanistan or Iraq or whoever through the USAF, somewhat like their F-16 loan program (see Italy) except for broke shithole countries, not primary allies. It's a balls-fast way to very, very cheaply start or supplement air forces operated by poor or rebuilding governments involved in low-intensity conflict, or for specialized (and limited) counterinsurgency use in poo poo terrain. Afghanistan and JSOC were in mind during the first stages of LAS. There weren't going to be squadrons and squadrons of A-29s with American roundels machine-gunning people. That was never the intent. Furthermore, the entire point of using a Super Tucano or Texan was that pilot training and maintanence would be simple as gently caress because Texans are already a widely-used, standard trainer for US forces. The buy numbers are/were tiny. This is a miniscule, drop-in-the bucket program family that had nothing whatsoever to do with F-35, and I'm really not sure why you're talking about LAS in relation to JSF at all. They have nothing in common other than the fact that they were both military.  Also you can see this idea in execution with USAF supplying a small number of A-29s to the Afghan military, and they are thinking about giving a handful to Lebanon (IIRC). Someone mentioned giving LAS aircraft to Iraq, which was never likely to happen. Iraq will get / is getting F-16s. LAS is/was a small, highly specialized weapons program. JSF isn't comparable, at all. Kennebago fucked around with this message at 15:45 on Jun 13, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2013 15:34
|
|
|
I had no idea what LAS was, you said nothing about it whatsoever in your first post, which was essentially "hey, how bout them Super Tucanos?" with no context. Are we now talking about what happened to the program to buy Super Tucanos for the Iraqis? Because yeah, I suppose that would be one capability the F35 doesn't currently fulfill as Iraq isn't a member of the program. Thanks for the answer.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2013 15:43
|
|
|
Throatwarbler posted:I had no idea what LAS was, you said nothing about it whatsoever in your first post, which was essentially "hey, how bout them Super Tucanos?" with no context. Are we now talking about what happened to the program to buy Super Tucanos for the Iraqis? Because yeah, I suppose that would be one capability the F35 doesn't currently fulfill as Iraq isn't a member of the program. Thanks for the answer. Sorry - LAS is/was, in its entirety, the American involvement with Super T. I assumed people knew that, my mistake. Like I said, LAS was never likely to go to Iraq. But you've got the general idea right, that's what LAS was geared for.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2013 15:48
|
|
|
I'm still not sure why costing tons less, loitering at low altitude easily, certifying pilots faster, and operating from far less robust air fields apparently don't count as things it can do in contrast with the F-35. For clarity, no, I'm not suggesting an all tucano air force or anything do stupid.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2013 15:51
|
|
|
Probably out of my expertise, but aren't prop planes really really really vulnerable to MANPADs? Like even more so than helicopters?
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2013 15:59
|
|
|
Koesj posted:Wrong plane. Whoops, got my Lockheed claptraps confused. Ok, something the Super Tucano can do over the F-35: Not be used as a bargaining chip with a expansionist state (That is give a fuckton for free if they stop expanding for a month).
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2013 16:05
|
|
|
Insane Totoro posted:Probably out of my expertise, but aren't prop planes really really really vulnerable to MANPADs? Like even more so than helicopters? My understanding is that they're more vulnerable to pretty much everything, which is obviously why LAS was such a niche program.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2013 16:08
|
|
|
Throatwarbler posted:Because the plane is already there so why not? Well, ya, if you have 'em, use 'em, but what mission, exactly, did we need a VTOL/Supersonic/LO/light fighter/light strike/carrier-capable/jet/clusterfuck for in the first place? Why didn't we just buy more F-22s, which are vastly more capable aircraft, and supplement them with more advanced F-16s for permissive-environment bomb-truck duties, and spending the savings on a real replacement naval strike fighter to supplant the Superbugs?
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2013 16:23
|
|
|
MrYenko posted:Well, ya, if you have 'em, use 'em, but what mission, exactly, did we need a VTOL/Supersonic/LO/light fighter/light strike/carrier-capable/jet/clusterfuck for in the first place? Why didn't we just buy more F-22s, which are vastly more capable aircraft, and supplement them with more advanced F-16s for permissive-environment bomb-truck duties, and spending the savings on a real replacement naval strike fighter to supplant the Superbugs? The F-35 was a great boost for a lot of politicians in their home districts.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2013 16:40
|
|
|
Again, the Chair Force needed something new for the fighter maffia, the Navy wanted a piece of the stealth pie after both the A-12 and the NATF didn't pan out for various reasons and the Navy's Army's Air Force had to have the Marine Air Wing be able to operate off of Gator ships. The F-35 might turn out to be a decent plane which is surprising since it came out of poo poo requirements and a badly managed project. A triumph of American industry, if you were inclined to be revisionist.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2013 16:59
|
|
|
Isn't a 600 nautical mile range and only four internal weapon stores really bad?
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2013 17:19
|
|
|
Oh yeah. That doesn't stop Grover though.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2013 17:32
|
|
|
Okay well, get working on some internal laser cannon like in Ace Combat. That'd be pretty awesome.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2013 17:47
|
|
|
Koesj posted:The F-35 might turn out to be a decent plane which is surprising since it came out of poo poo requirements and a badly managed project. A triumph of American industry, if you were inclined to be revisionist.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2013 17:48
|
|
|
I just found this thread and I love it. Anyone else sperg out on games like this growing up? 
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2013 18:36
|
|
|
Harpoon  I think I mentioned it before but having that second regiment of Backfires pop up to finally take out those two carrier made me freak the gently caress out many years ago.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2013 18:43
|
|
|
joat mon posted:Combat range for both flavors of F-18 is about 400 nm, about 500 for the F-14. Straight up: Navy organic tanking is a goddamn joke. Retasking half your aircraft to tank the other half shits all over your sortie generation capability while also making every sortie take twice as long to launch and recover. I don't think it's ever been proposed for any even slightly realistic scenario. Tactical fighters also make really poor tankers. This is why the Hornet's short legs are such a big deal: the Navy depends on Air Force tankers to give their fighters a good combat range, and ramp space for said tankers is a limited resource in the middle of the Pacific.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2013 18:43
|
|
|
Silly question but why did the navy get rid of the S-3s? Old airframes? Could no one build more? It's a proven design why not just keep it around? Or is this a "we must standardize carrier operations around 1 type of aircraft come hell or high water!!" type of thing?
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2013 18:47
|
|
|
priznat posted:Or is this a "we must standardize carrier operations around 1 type of aircraft come hell or high water!!" type of thing? That plus no money plus who gives a poo poo about ASW.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2013 18:54
|
|
|
Could the super bug mount conformal fuel tanks in the future to solve that issue a la the mudhen? Or would that make it too heavy to launch with enough weapons?
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2013 19:02
|
|
|
Why don't they do tanker versions of carrier capable cargo aircraft like the C-2? Can it not fly high or far enough?
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2013 19:04
|
|
|
Operating Rod posted:I have always had the biggest hard-on for Intruders. Getting to do work on EA-6B projects right off the bat as an intern while I was in grad school was the coolest thing. Intruders were (and Prowlers still are) awesome awesome aircraft that were retired before their time, sacrificed on the Super Hornet altar of good enough from the NAVAIR broken dreams that were a reality after the A-12 program self destructed (not going to talk about NATF because that was never anything other than a vaporware pipedream). Basically if you want to define the quintessential maritime strike aircraft, you needn't look any further than the Intruder or Buccaneer. Regarding LAS, current status is that the USAF is only buying 15, basically to allow us to develop expertise with the aircraft among a small cadre of air advisors who will then go in and train the foreign militaries that we're selling them to (right now just Afghanistan). The entire program was a loving disaster that is basically exhibit A that it is literally impossible for the US military to buy anything without there being massive Congressional shenanigans combined with at least 5 different protests and court orders stopping/restarting production, because that happened with what is a glorified Cessna, which is loving ludicrous. The USAF finally re-awarded the contract to Sierra Nevada/Embraer back in February, and although Hawker Beechcraft protested (again) and the Kansas Congressional delegation tried to get involved (again) the USAF told both parties to gently caress off and ordered production to start anyway, and a court upheld this decision so maybe things will finally progress. The original plan to have the USAF buy 100 went away when we realized that RPAs can do about 90% of what LAS was going to offer from a straight capabilities perspective as far as CAS in a permissive environment (setting aside the training/mentoring foreign air forces aspect, which is still proceeding in theory) while also allowing massive improvement in ISR, and could do it for far cheaper. RPAs aren't CHEAP cheap (a Reaper costs right around $10M) but when you factor in how many we are buying you start getting economy of scale, especially since you can utilize a lot of the same support infrastructure between several different aircraft, and it's not like we're getting rid of them any time soon. Also Dead Reckoning said everything I was going to say about the Navy's tanking ability. It is a fact that a CSG cannot effectively conduct ASuW without USAF tankers. While it is true that subs are the Navy's primary ASuW weapon, there's also a reason why the CSG still does it, and it's not (just) because admirals want to relive Midway. When I said that the short legs of the Hornet (and honestly the F-35 as well) compared to purpose built strike aircraft like the A-6 and A-7 are changing the very nature of how the USN employs CSGs, I wasn't exaggerating. While I will be the first to admit that any WestPac shooting war is highly, highly theoretical, poo poo gets real interesting once Kadena is off the table as far as USAF tankers are concerned. And the Navy got rid of Hoovers because they're idiots who have basically let their ASW capabilities wither away to nothing. Also because the money went towards recapitalizing other areas of NAVAIR that were more in need of the money. e: Mortabis posted:Could the super bug mount conformal fuel tanks in the future to solve that issue a la the mudhen? Or would that make it too heavy to launch with enough weapons? Boeing is actually developing this along with a psuedo-"stealthy" weapons pod to basically try and snipe off F-35 business. They actually are on top of the fuselage, similar to the Block 60 F-16 ones. Remains to be seen whether it's anything other than drawings, but it still wouldn't really solve the issue because there are things inherently wrong with the Super Bug's design (like the fact that its weapons pylons are canted out several degrees due to a quick and dirty fix to stores separation issues, significantly increasing drag when it's carrying air to surface munitions) that just make it an aircraft that doesn't have particularly long range. iyaayas01 fucked around with this message at 19:25 on Jun 13, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2013 19:09
|
|
|
Count Sacula posted:I just found this thread and I love it. A lot of us did ! The Fleet series are some of my favorite wargames. They're playable, cover most of the issues of sub-surface-air interactions, and are fun to boot. Anyone with an interest in Cold War naval should grab any copy of these you see, or hunt up a used copy.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2013 19:55
|
|
|
Insane Totoro posted:Probably out of my expertise, but aren't prop planes really really really vulnerable to MANPADs? Like even more so than helicopters? Not more vulnerable than helicopters, but sure, they aren't as survivable against MANPADS as jets. Part of the reason helicopters are so susceptible isn't that they are necessarily inherently easier for the seeker to see or anything, but rather that they are moving slow and typically much lower, so you have a greater engagement envelope against them, more time for the gunner to get the sight picture and tone properly set up, and they have very little ability to do evasive maneuvers to try to defeat the missile through maneuvers or dragging to defend. edit: I guess on choppers it's easier to mask the engines from a head-on perspective and prop wash helps dissipate heat faster. With rear-mounted prop aircraft, you can always blast the exhaust straight into the prop wash, though, to help dissipate heat signature quickly. I wouldn't recommend a Super Tucano in airspace with piles and piles of MANPADS, to be sure. Still, the great majority of surface-to-air fires we saw in Iraq/Afghanistan was made up of small arms, crew serves, and unguided weapons like RPGs and improvised S-5 rocket launchers rather than MANPADS. A helo hovering or moving very slowly can be credibly killed from time to time with RPGs and S-5s. You'd have to be exceptionally lucky to nail a prop plane with one, unless it's parked on the ground. Incidentally, insurgents blowing planes apart on the ground works great against Harriers!  Poor missile guidance logic can also be a great benefit to faster tracks. If a missile system is smart enough and has sensors to provide the missile with a constantly updated predicted impact point, speed of the target starts to matter a whole hell of a lot less than if you only have a system that constantly flies toward the target. In the former, a crossing target can be hit quite easily, whereas with the latter system the missile finds itself trying to pull a whole hell of a lot of G's at the last second in a crossing engagement.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2013 20:27
|
|
|
This is probably relevant to the gaming discussion, here.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2013 20:28
|
|
|
Insane Totoro posted:Probably out of my expertise, but aren't prop planes really really really vulnerable to MANPADs? Like even more so than helicopters? Yep. Maybe not more than helos, but yeah, it's a problem. This is one of my reservations about a light attack aircraft. See those metal pipes right above the shark's mouth?  Those are piping hot air directly from the turbine into the prop wash. It's pretty much the opposite of low observable. You can see they've tried to mitigate this and attached some sort of missile warning receiver (the lenses on the tail and wingtips) and a flare bucket but as more and more non-poo poo MANPADS proliferate into the wild that is going to count for less and less. With several well-armed states currently suffering internal turmoil or outright civil wars, I think this is going to be a problem sooner rather than later. With fast jets, it's possible to transit the WEZ before the guy with the Igla can get a shot, or to overfly it. The first option is a lot more difficult for a prop plane, and while the second might be possible I don't know what sort of performance a PT6-powered airplane gets with bombs hanging off the wings. If you're going to limit yourself to orbiting high above the threat range, why not get a Predator? Another thing is that most of these planes aren't very robust airframes. The T-6, for example, has a relatively anemic oil system that limits its performance in several areas and occasionally throws out nusance master caution/warning lights. This isn't that big a deal in a trainer aircraft where the student can always elect to pull the ejection handle and give it back to the taxpayer... but if your oil system takes a bullet from an AK-47 over Afghanistan and loses all its quantity, causing your single engine and gearbox to seize up, well now you're stuck with all those people you just got done dropping cluster bombs on. Adding armor and redundant systems is going to eat into performance, probably in ways that would make the aircraft unable to do its mission. There are some up sides, however. For example, Throatwarbler's arguments make sense if you've never heard of things like "logistics." In the real world, the tiny footprint of a A-29 or AT-6 is a big deal. Being able to pack half a squadron of light aircraft on cargo planes and fly them out of an operation not much larger than a FARP is a really useful capability, and could be done with much lower visibility than the "WOOP WOOP, AMERICA'S FREEDOM TRAIN PULLING INTO THE STATION  " involved in setting up a base capable of supporting F-35s.The idea of zipping around at 500' in a prop jet dropping napalm gives me wood, and AFSOC currently shares my boner for light fixed-wing aviation, but it's a program with a lot of questions hanging over it. Insane Totoro posted:Okay well, get working on some internal laser cannon like in Ace Combat. That'd be pretty awesome. Dead Reckoning fucked around with this message at 20:59 on Jun 13, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2013 20:33
|
|
|
Okay well riddle me this about logistics. Then why not just build intercontinental drones that don't even require a logistics endpoint in enemy territory? With drones, when have we ever needed this hypothetical ability to drop off some light attack aircraft on some dirt strip in the middle of nowhere/possible contested ground?
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2013 20:43
|
|
|
The CIA keeps on stealing control of the ones with missiles.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2013 20:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 17:05 |
|
|
Insane Totoro posted:Okay well riddle me this about logistics. Then why not just build intercontinental drones that don't even require a logistics endpoint in enemy territory? That sounds hella expensive. quote:With drones, when have we ever needed this hypothetical ability to drop off some light attack aircraft on some dirt strip in the middle of nowhere/possible contested ground? Probably in Yemen, Somalia.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2013 20:45
|
|