So the kind of wars we have been fighting for nearly 20 years are low-intensity conflicts against enemies with little or no AA defences. yet we use very expensive airframes to drop bombs on them. Airframes have only a few hundred hours of flying time before being written off. Operational losses mount up. We are even going to sue the F-25 as a bomb-truck against barefoot shepherds. This is a blatant waste of taxpayers' money when prop planes could do the job far cheaper. Shit, we could have an ancient C-130 lumbering about for hours and roll GPS-guided bombs out the back on trolleys to do the job. is this purely a political thing - ie feeding tax dollars to the MIC or is the a good reason why we don't have planes like the Super Tucano doing the job? I'm guessing that bribery by the MIC is the reason.
Why don't we use prop planes anymore?
Why don't we use biplanes anymore?
We do.
b-b-but a-user those arent r-real planes!
Because the MIC doesn't want cheap planes that are good enough.
Piston engines are maintenance intensive.
And low power (slow, smaller payload).
Loiter time is good.
Turboprops maybe, remember the OV-10?
What's a f-25?
Lol
Honestly senpai, because China is gearing up for a fight. It may not be obvious to you considering the closest you've come to a strategic threat has probably been Chinese shitposting on this Hawaiian spearchucking monastry, but it's very obvious to the people living in Asia, especially the ones living right next to China. They are subverting governments, spying for advantageous trade deals (more than normal), and most importantly they're actively trying to draw all of us away from the US.
It's far cheaper and safer to dump all of this money on the F-35 and to then use it to bomb illiterate terrorists using 70s Soviet equipment than it is to dump that money (or even half of it) on the aircraft you describe and to do the same thing. Why? Well, how are you going to get a prop plane 800 nmi to it's target and past a satan-tier SAM network without losing at least 90% of your aircraft? Are you willing to have your empire destroyed because of this? Are you willing to take the economic hit?
These are also important. They have a 90% readiness rate (I think the F-15E fleet hovers at like 60%, and that's good) since all you have to do to repair them is take out broken equipment and slot in new equipment. I don't think the engines on those break, ever.
When you mean "prop planes" are you referring to Turbo-props or Reciprocating engine aircraft?
Because they are completely different.
Not entirely. Radial engines have some serious muscle. Also, considerably cheaper to operate. A overhaul in a R-1820-76d would cost $40k. And overhaul on a PT-6 roughly $300k - $800k depending on the dash number.
Keeping them around in today's world is just too herculean a task.
F-35. blame alcohol..
Radials need high octane gas. Now you have to create a logistics train.
Like I said, we have prop plane cas. The predators, why do we need manned ones?
They reactivated the OV-10 Bronco for use against ISIS for a while
>why don’t we use props anymore
Wtf kinda statement is that?
>picrelated
*>picunrelated
I love these posts. The entire pentagon overlooked some incredible way to save money for decades until some bubba on a Pomeranian macrame forum shitposted about it. If someone points out a blatant stupidity in the idea it’s “muh military industrial complex”
Yeah I' sure if Lockmart could fill a government contract for 10% of their usual price they wold be glad to do so. They're good like that.
*why don't we use turbo-prop aircraft more often
Lol. Radials burn the most common aviation gas. 100LL.
USAF is about to buy one of those two.
Plus the fuckloads of C-130 and drones that they already use.
>Shit, we could have an ancient C-130 lumbering about for hours and roll GPS-guided bombs out the back on trolleys to do the job.
So exactly what they do now, fucktard.
Can you make a high performance radial hat uses that? In WW2 the only way you got top performance was with 100+ octane fuels.
I mean. A BC-130 is an idea that I've been thinking about for a while now. Doubles as a cargo plane whenever you don't need a bomb truck.
I feel you user. I want a skymaster so I can be a blue job runnin strafe on commies
protip: engine design has gotten a lot better since the 1930s. Same reason why a modern car running on ordinary pump gas makes far more power than a 1930's car, despite having a far smaller displacement engine.
True! Hell even since the 90s there's been big increases.
We used OV-10s during the Mosul siege, Smithsonian Channel did a good episode on it.
Think the show is called Mighty Planes
IT. ALREADY. EXISTS.
The OP asked for cost reductions.
What I said was not wrong.
The operating cost of an aircraft with recip engines is extremely lower than one with turbine engines. But the government decide to pay more for the reliability and reduce unscheduled maintenance times.
All ww2 radial engines burn 100LL today.
Even the B-29's R3350s.
The power loss isn't very noticeable.
As long as the lead content isn't removed.
because technicals with 50cals have the possibility of shooting them down.
Or you can use a jet and have absolutely no possibility of getting shotdown.
Which would you rather fucking have?
not really ground support now are they.
I hope they go with the AT-6, it’s cuter
This is now a ground-attack planefu thread.
The LAAR program still isn't dead yet? How long has this been going on? Isn't this just one of those never quite dead programs the USAF does so that they can keep aircraft away from the army?
causes the military industrial complex would make less money.
Super Tucano specifically pariticpates in two USAF programs the LAX and the competition against against the AT-4.
We sent about 250 Skyraiders to Vietnam and lost 200. The commies had mostly unguided aaa. OV-10 Broncos had a better ratio but with fewer losses.
Because response times are a factor as well. If your prop plane is too slow to get on target before the insurgents have fucked off, then it's no good to man or beast.
Also, numerous times in Afghanistan and Iraq a fast response from air assets was the differece between a unit being overrun and a unit not being overrun.
Why don't they just get a jumbo jet with like a 1000 SDBs in the back to loiter for two weeks
Why don't they just get a big fucking near space blimp with tons of food and water and a constantly rotating crew that carries 10,000 JDAMs and paveways and they just have to push them off the side and they'll fall where they JTAC lases or whatever coordinates they program into it
I mean they can't shoot down big space blimp literally every goatfucker conflict could be contained by a bigass space blimp full of PGMs that goes on duty for months at a time like the boomers
Would there be any merit to strapping a 20mm ball turret on one of these like they did on the OV10s?
>not really ground support
TOP KEK
Who do you think is overhead when guys on the ground are doing actions on?
Who has the best situational awareness in a TIC? Who has the best ability to cross reference GRGs and find exactly where the enemy is hiding, then put a missile in it in under a minute?
Yeah, the guy flying around at 600mph by himself, definitely not the bird thats been loitering overhead for 12 hours and has 50 different people watching and analyzing the feed and ground imagery.
Common goods are only common if there's a clear and well documented supply train.
thats a big plane
Skyraider
>Korean war
101 shot down
>Vietnam war
266 shot down
Imagine if you see such numbers today. Even one fighter shot down will create a media frenzy. Combat prop planes can only be used if your country doesn't care about dead pilots.
Why the fuck is anything naval related so goddamn aesthetic?
Those "prop planes" you're talking about still use turbine engines, only difference is that the fan is on the outside instead of being stuck inside a tube.
Because the Navy is full of gays and gays make the best fashion designers.