Skip to content
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Defense News)   In a move that has only happened every decade since the 1950s, US Air Force declines to buy small propeller driven attack aircraft   (defensenews.com) divider line
    More: Obvious, United States Air Force, FY18, light attack aircraft, defense budget, Military organization, past year, Air Force, Last year  
•       •       •

1185 clicks; posted to Business » on 11 Feb 2020 at 3:36 PM (20 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



26 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2020-02-11 11:55:35 AM  
I don't know why they bother. They've got amazing A10s yet are always looking over their shoulders at F16s and the like.
 
2020-02-11 3:42:45 PM  

edmo: I don't know why they bother. They've got amazing A10s yet are always looking over their shoulders at F16s and the like.


We've spent the last 19 years fighting an enemy lives in mud huts and caves.
 
2020-02-11 3:47:49 PM  
Gee, what a surprise. The AF brass cares about only one thing- manned high performance fighter planes that take on other airplanes.

Other AF missions- ground attack, strategic bombing, cargo lift, tanker, AWACs, etc, are of no interest other than where they can support buying new, shiny manned fighters.  And God forbid they get close to the ground where the grunts hang out- that's dangerous, with lots of MANPADs and small arms fire that might dent their pretty airplanes.  So it's irrelevant that these would be a great purchase- cheap close air support for insurgent scale warfare.  Buy more shiny fighters and pretend they can do ground support, although somehow they never get around to it

/Ex-tanker.
//A-10s are beloved by tankers
 
2020-02-11 3:51:43 PM  
They should sell those to the general public.

Fark flying around in a Cessna.
 
2020-02-11 4:31:48 PM  
The Douglas A-1 Skyraider is still the best.
 
2020-02-11 4:48:48 PM  

theFword: The Douglas A-1 Skyraider is still the best.


Nah. No reason to use a piston engine in the 21st century, a Turboprop just makes more sense.

Plus, I don't know how well it would support modern electronics, sensors, and weapons systems.

That said, something like an A1 with modern sensors and electronics powered by a turboprop makes a lot of sense in counter-insurgency roles. Which is what this basically was and why the US supplied them to Afghanistan.
 
2020-02-11 5:18:39 PM  

edmo: I don't know why they bother. They've got amazing A10s yet are always looking over their shoulders at F16s and the like.


Because a turboprop ground attack plane would be better at supporting troops. Tank busting is one role, but honestly we've got "over the horizon" kill capability for that one. The ability to slog in the mud is something a turboprop would honestly be better at than a jet, even the venerable A-10.

If you want to have fun, watch an Ag-cat cropdusting a field. Get as good view of it if possible while avoiding what's its spraying on the field. Now think of one going much faster if needed, with targeting gear, loaded with weapons, having a much higher performance, and flying about 100' off the ground. What you would see on a battlefield is a bunch of pedes shiatting their drawers after they started recognizing the sound.
 
2020-02-11 6:14:24 PM  

Glockenspiel Hero: Gee, what a surprise. The AF brass cares about only one thing- manned high performance fighter planes that take on other airplanes.

Other AF missions- ground attack, strategic bombing, cargo lift, tanker, AWACs, etc, are of no interest other than where they can support buying new, shiny manned fighters.  And God forbid they get close to the ground where the grunts hang out- that's dangerous, with lots of MANPADs and small arms fire that might dent their pretty airplanes.  So it's irrelevant that these would be a great purchase- cheap close air support for insurgent scale warfare.  Buy more shiny fighters and pretend they can do ground support, although somehow they never get around to it

/Ex-tanker.
//A-10s are beloved by tankers


The Air Force should have never been split off from the Army.  They hate the non-sexy, lousy for recruitment jobs but piss and moan whenever the Army tries to do it
 
2020-02-11 6:19:22 PM  
Maybe we should bring back these:
cdn.britannica.comView Full Size
 
2020-02-11 6:27:35 PM  
No money in it. F35 is a better choice for all applications because... mo money, mo money, no money.

/works for DOD, gets it
 
2020-02-11 6:28:45 PM  
Heh. The fat fingering actually works in this case.

/that's what she said
 
2020-02-11 6:50:40 PM  
The Air Force does have a large propeller ground support aircraft that works pretty well.
Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2020-02-11 7:11:47 PM  

Brandi Morgan: The Air Force does have a large propeller ground support aircraft that works pretty well.
[Fark user image image 275x183]


Yeah, but giant gunships are cool, see Call of Duty.

A small turboprop plane, not so much.
 
2020-02-11 7:15:24 PM  

theFword: The Douglas A-1 Skyraider is still the best.


A-1 kind of got its ass handed to it in Korea. Which is why eventually developed a dedicated craft.
 
2020-02-11 7:16:49 PM  

inglixthemad: edmo: I don't know why they bother. They've got amazing A10s yet are always looking over their shoulders at F16s and the like.

Because a turboprop ground attack plane would be better at supporting troops. Tank busting is one role, but honestly we've got "over the horizon" kill capability for that one. The ability to slog in the mud is something a turboprop would honestly be better at than a jet, even the venerable A-10.

If you want to have fun, watch an Ag-cat cropdusting a field. Get as good view of it if possible while avoiding what's its spraying on the field. Now think of one going much faster if needed, with targeting gear, loaded with weapons, having a much higher performance, and flying about 100' off the ground. What you would see on a battlefield is a bunch of pedes shiatting their drawers after they started recognizing the sound.


Over the horizon is a pipe dream that will always be impractical due to rules of engagement.
 
2020-02-11 7:32:51 PM  

This text is now purple: inglixthemad: edmo: I don't know why they bother. They've got amazing A10s yet are always looking over their shoulders at F16s and the like.
...
Over the horizon is a pipe dream that will always be impractical due to rules of engagement.


If you are firing because the computer told you to, and counting on the missile finding its target on its own, why not take the pilot out of the loop and just use drones?

Because drone "pilots" don't get the right ribbons to become MIC lobbyists...
 
2020-02-11 7:37:38 PM  

dywed88: Brandi Morgan: The Air Force does have a large propeller ground support aircraft that works pretty well.
[Fark user image image 275x183]

Yeah, but giant gunships are cool, see Call of Duty.

A small turboprop plane, not so much.


What if it fired small turboprop planes?
 
TWX [TotalFark]
2020-02-11 8:23:29 PM  
Sounds like they've purchased aircraft to act as simulated enemy aircraft.
 
2020-02-11 8:25:54 PM  

yet_another_wumpus: If you are firing because the computer told you to, and counting on the missile finding its target on its own, why not take the pilot out of the loop and just use drones?


That could be an excellent reason to forego the new purchase.
 
2020-02-11 8:39:53 PM  

inglixthemad: edmo: I don't know why they bother. They've got amazing A10s yet are always looking over their shoulders at F16s and the like.

Because a turboprop ground attack plane would be better at supporting troops. Tank busting is one role, but honestly we've got "over the horizon" kill capability for that one. The ability to slog in the mud is something a turboprop would honestly be better at than a jet, even the venerable A-10.

If you want to have fun, watch an Ag-cat cropdusting a field. Get as good view of it if possible while avoiding what's its spraying on the field. Now think of one going much faster if needed, with targeting gear, loaded with weapons, having a much higher performance, and flying about 100' off the ground. What you would see on a battlefield is a bunch of pedes shiatting their drawers after they started recognizing the sound.


They already have attack Turbine Air Tractor versions. AT-802U. They are badass to begin with, made in Texas, and you can't kill them.

The aerial firefighting versions have 1400hp engines and carry 4 tons of water with catalog specs for just under $4 million each. I can't even imagine a souped-up fighter version.
Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2020-02-11 9:49:23 PM  

yet_another_wumpus: This text is now purple: inglixthemad: edmo: I don't know why they bother. They've got amazing A10s yet are always looking over their shoulders at F16s and the like.
...
Over the horizon is a pipe dream that will always be impractical due to rules of engagement.

If you are firing because the computer told you to, and counting on the missile finding its target on its own, why not take the pilot out of the loop and just use drones?

Because drone "pilots" don't get the right ribbons to become MIC lobbyists...


Sounds like the drone AIs should talk to the AIs running the MICs and work out a deal.
 
2020-02-11 10:43:17 PM  
They just need to have a senator's relative make them. Then the Air Force will buy thousands.
 
2020-02-12 1:53:28 AM  
The problem with those small attack aircraft is that they are so small and uncomplicated it is hard to spread the manufacture of them across more than a dozen congressional districts.  To be put in production you probably need a minimum of 150 to 200 congressional districts and at least 30 states to capture the House and Senate seats needed to push through budgetary support.
 
2020-02-12 3:43:31 AM  
Once you have Brrrrrrt you need nothing else.
 
2020-02-12 6:27:29 AM  

Brandi Morgan: The Air Force does have a large propeller ground support aircraft that works pretty well.
[Fark user image 275x183]

That's not close air support.  That's aerial artillery.  It does what it's supposed to do quite well, but I'm guessing its idea of "danger close" is easily half a click away from the action.
 
2020-02-12 9:59:27 AM  

whither_apophis: Glockenspiel Hero: Gee, what a surprise. The AF brass cares about only one thing- manned high performance fighter planes that take on other airplanes.

Other AF missions- ground attack, strategic bombing, cargo lift, tanker, AWACs, etc, are of no interest other than where they can support buying new, shiny manned fighters.  And God forbid they get close to the ground where the grunts hang out- that's dangerous, with lots of MANPADs and small arms fire that might dent their pretty airplanes.  So it's irrelevant that these would be a great purchase- cheap close air support for insurgent scale warfare.  Buy more shiny fighters and pretend they can do ground support, although somehow they never get around to it

/Ex-tanker.
//A-10s are beloved by tankers

The Air Force should have never been split off from the Army.  They hate the non-sexy, lousy for recruitment jobs but piss and moan whenever the Army tries to do it


Nah, the fixed wing operation ban imposed on the Army is what needs to go away.  Let the AF have strategic bombing.  B52s, B1s and B2s are not something an Army general needs to be worrying about.  Nor ICBMs.  Let the AF have those.  And air superiority can stay in the Air Force as well.  Where it gets dicey is the ground attack plane role.  There's arguments either way, but the close support roles should have remained Army Air Corp.
 
Displayed 26 of 26 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking




On Twitter




In Other Media
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.