Can the A-29 Super Tucano do BRRRRRRRT?

If it can't, then why some people say it can perform just as good as the A-10?

Attached: A-29 Super Tucano_Over_Afghanistan.jpg (1200x739, 102K)

Other urls found in this thread:

defensenews.com/2019/05/08/air-force-to-give-sierra-nevada-corp-a-sole-source-contract-for-light-attack-planes-but-textron-will-be-getting-an-award-too/
acc.af.mil/News/Photos/igphoto/2000653518/
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

Brrrt is shitty overrated fuddlore

Attached: 1553971882236.jpg (750x703, 60K)

defensenews.com/2019/05/08/air-force-to-give-sierra-nevada-corp-a-sole-source-contract-for-light-attack-planes-but-textron-will-be-getting-an-award-too/

Textron getting btfo'd again

BRRRt is a retarded meme and you should feel bad about yourself

Attached: Air-to-air_with_Afghan_Air_Force_Embraer_A-29_Super_Tucano.jpg (1920x1275, 609K)

Its not fuddlore but its designed to work against armor and our modern conflicts are primarily against guerilla infantry.

Well it can't carry a GAU-8, the gun and it's associated ammo feeder are almost the same size as a Tucano, you could slap a couple of M134's under the wings though in self contained pods or something like that if a gun run is really a deciding factor.

Were getting Tucanos? Who are we giving them to?

12 are going to Nigeria, but some are going to Navy Special Warfare and Air Force

>4 M134s strapped under the wings
>Maybe a couple dumbfire rockets
>mfw we go back to ww2 ground-attack craft with modern technology

Attached: rmxDuMY.jpg.png (640x400, 32K)

>>mfw we go back to ww2 ground-attack craft with modern technology

Attached: 1375937095697.jpg (500x394, 18K)

More like 2 M2 machine guns and a couple of GBU-39 bombs, though the weight may be pushing the airframe's limits but idk

Fuddlore.

Isn't the whole point of this plane is to give them to countrys as a cheap alternative to jets to fuck up insurgents and what not

And to give SOCOM pilots the same equipment with cheaper operating cost

what year is it

Attached: 1549858946942.jpg (2048x1816, 302K)

>what year is it
a year were the Air Force may consider bringing in enlisted to be pilots

It could actually carry quite a lot of GBU's, set aside 400lbs for a pair of M134 miniguns, their own weight in ammo, and some thin aluminum shells to reduce their drag and it's still got 3000lbs of payload, or enough to carry 10 GBU-39's, or a ton of small missiles or missile boosted bombs in the 10-30kg weight range.

got 100 hours in the canadian version of this, nice plane to fly

It useless against modern tank armor. Plus the A-10 has hellfires for that which actually does the job.

The issue isn’t recruiting qualified pilot candidates, it’s retaining them past their initial service requirement. Don’t expect to see any flight slots in the AF that don’t require a degree anytime soon.

Piston engine WW2 fighters literally outperform in terms of flight and armament. Imagine having 70 years of technology progress and still failing to beat f4us and p-47s.

Because the A-10 is significantly vulnerable to modern air defense systems, and if you're only fighting dirt-farming guerillas then the A-10's titanium bathtub is just dead weight that could otherwise be used for carrying ordnance.

The A-10 is obsolete and inefficient, which is why it's taken a back seat to almost every other CAS platform.

*sad brrrrrrt*

Maybe some sort of gun drone would be a good idea, imagine a drone with an autocanon and very extreme 20G+ maneuvering abilities with thrust vectoring. It would have advanced optics for the gun plus secondary panoramic cameras for general searching. The operator would select where they want the gun run and the drone would automatically line it up, the operator could precisely aim the gun via the high resolution gun camera during the run and the drone will automatically pull up and avoid slamming into the ground. You could also have different attack profiles, against tanks top attack could be selected, the drone could climb vertically, aim itself post stall allowing the operator ample time to shoot the top of a tank, then it would automatically pull up as needed. Completely automated attacks against vehicles would be possible as well. With a high thrust to weight ratio and extreme 20G+ maneuvering via thrust vectoring it could just troll many SAMs until they run out of energy.

Attached: 1534020350762.png (1000x714, 141K)

Fuck yes

This. Pilots are a waste of space in modern warfare. 5th gen aircraft are already obsolete for all intents and purposes.

Finally. I've been driving myself mad wondering why enlisted can't fly planes.

I do understand that a pilot and their crew act like a platoon, but I don't understand why operating a vehicle is treated like commanding a platoon.

Because the enlisted role is to be the pilot's fluffer.

It's not meant for tanks. Consult this reference material for more. The GAU-8 does an excellent job shredding APCs, IFVs, SPHs, SPAAs*, and soft vehicles. Also, most A-10 kills on tanks were done with unguided bombs or AGM-65s.

Attached: 1522319171984.jpg (484x608, 40K)

Your digits have some irony in 'em. F-111's wrecked more enemy armor in Gulf War than A-10's.

Attached: F-111A_dropping_MK82.jpg (1930x2840, 3.08M)

It's not meant to be a fighter, such performance is not needed.

Attached: you.png (722x436, 97K)

What if instead we used that weight for more m134s and ammo? Make it the dakka mosquito

The GAU-8 is ineffective against modern tank armor. It's a huge waste of space and weight on the aircraft.

Officers = nobles, enlisted = peasants. Which one gets more responsibility and more opportunity to do cool shit?

>and it's still got 3000lbs of payload,
Dude its total payload is 3,330lbs on 5 hardpoints...

Imagine being trained to fly cool brrrrrrt jets just to be assigned a propeller aircraft after leaving fly school.

Would it be beneficial to add a long muffler similar to the observational plane that had one? Or would that be pointless?

Profile reminds me of a sand tiger shark

Attached: sts.jpg (631x300, 37K)

depends how fast the prop turns, meaning probably no unless it is specifically designed for audio stealth

Since you cannot aim missiles with souds, this would not be a problem.

Who cares if it's effective or not?
I just want to see propellers make a comeback

The advantages of jet engines for all but the top planes is no longer existent.

It can be armed with some top tier missles, enought to take most modern planes.

F4U or P-47 were extremely capable of using precision guided weaponry and were totally networked with modern datalinks.

>capable of using precision guided weaponry
A zeppelin is capable of using precision guided weaponry, since precision guided weaponry guides itself;

>The GAU-8 is ineffective against modern tank armor. It's a huge waste of space and weight on the aircraft.
>It useless against modern tank armor. Plus the A-10 has hellfires for that which actually does the job.

Reminder that the vast majority of Russian armour is un upgraded T72s and BMP1s and "s which the A10 would shred perfectly well

If I remember right the A-10 was also meant to shit on helicopters with the GAU

Show me an A-10 with an AGM-114 on it.

It's because they have executive authority over a lot of powerful weapons. You want the guy in the plane to be educated and trained to make command decisions, because if he's flying a CAS mission he may need to make decisions which will directly lead to the destruction of friendly or civilian forces. Enlisted simply are not trusted to weigh the lives of an entire platoon versus the potential value of a few bombs.

Friendly reminder that the A-10's main anti-tank weapon is Hellfire

acc.af.mil/News/Photos/igphoto/2000653518/

it's clearly not an A-10 but it's more efficient and effective for our current needs.

Exactly, which is why retiring the P-47 was either a bad call, or a sign that the USAF/Army doesn't actually need an aircraft like the Super Tucano.

efficient and effective and affordable.

Super sonic attack jets are expensive, and can only attack for like 20 minuets before they have to go refuel.

A-29 can stay airborne for hours. You could have 20 of them supporting ground troops for three hours for the cost of 20 minuets of one modern attack jet.

F4U and P-47 are fucking old.

Just look at the landing gear. F4U and P-47 had one small on the rear and two on the front.

The Super Tucano has the configuration of any modern airplane.

The pilot would need a different type of training just to get used to how the F4U and the P47 take-off and land. Which then he would also need another training to fly modern airplanes.

Get over fucking idiot. Super Tucano is a beast.

Those are AGM-65s, dumbass. Hellfires are made for helicopters and have been adapted to some drones, the A-10 doesn't carry them.

Attached: Capture.png (710x537, 530K)

Air force officers get cushy contracts with boeing and lockheed after they retire if they lobby for more expensive high tech jets while they're in the military.

Basically the greed machine has caused generals to advocate in the interest of the manufactures, not the actual needs of the military.

For reference, this is an AGM-114.

Attached: hellfire.jpg (600x400, 78K)

Because BRRRRRRRRRRRRRRT is a shitty meme, low and slow CAS in an enviroment with greater than 0 AA is a shitty meme and the A-10 is a shitty meme plane

imagining thinking an attack plane needs to outperform a fighter.

Imagine even comparing the two.

barely worked against T-72Ms in Iraq, let alone the average B3 or T90

shithole countries like Canada and Yurop should look into things like this so they can stop being parasites on real militaries

>why enlisted can't fly planes.
because the AF got rid of their Warrant Officers

>hurr let's send B-52s to the other side of the world in CAS mission
>hurr the AC-130 is a good and cost-effective plane

Attached: 1550493916222.jpg (326x294, 12K)

Who has pics of that proposed plan to build a fleet of semi autonomous drone subsonic jets loaded to the gills with mounting points and integrated into the F35s sensor array?

>Because that's what will be the 2020's new BRRRRRRRT
The future is now old man.

They'd be 1/3 the price of a factory bare super tuscano

Attached: 1517727024100m.jpg (1024x576, 93K)

>semi autonomous drone subsonic jets
until they lose reception

>Textron getting btfo'd again
>"a similar solicitation for Textron’s AT-6 Wolverine will be forthcoming,"

>Piston engine WW2 fighters literally outperform in terms of flight and armament.

No they don't.

You mean JDAM, Paveway and Mavericks.

>A-29 Super Tucano
>Unit Cost: $18 million

>A-10 thunderbolt II
>Unit Cost: $18 Million

W..we..we need the A-29 to cut costs.

Attached: 354deaa3770912621bb816da070346ab.jpg (258x245, 12K)

An A-10 costs more than that in the current year.

So what I'm understanding is you can mount 5 m134s with 50,000 rounds of ammo?

>Jams your signal to the aircraft
Nothing personal kid.

>Jams signal
Oh noooooo

>what are maintenance costs
>what are fuel costs
>what is inflation
You didn't think that through very well, I see.

Tell that to the thousands of marines that swear otherwise

Good luck jamming MADL.

I don't understand why civilians get Cessnas when they could get striped down super tacos. They're a lot fast and more efficient.

>Plus the A-10 has mavericks for that which actually does the job
FIFY

Attached: 1557097379172.png (308x296, 8K)

No but a varient of the bronco could. and it could do orbital fire

Attached: better than the taco.jpg (763x543, 62K)

Literally just use the Skyraider

Because cessnas cost a fraction of the price

They're shaped so badly for efficient flight, though. You'd think a double seater front rear style plane would be more desirable, and not much more expensive. Maybe people prefer Cessnas for the spacious cabin.

Actually, why don't they just make a prop powered plane that's shaped like a glider? That would be ultra efficient.

It's called a motor glider, and they're slow as all fuck.
It's wanted because it's a rugged airframe, stable as all fuck, and way cheaper than the alternative. Sure, you can buy an SR22 for half a million dollars (probably more) and spin it into a field killing you and your friends because you got distracted for two seconds in the pattern, or you could spend half the money (or way less) on a workhorse that will barely spin if you try to make it do so.

The Tucano couldn't even get the GAU-8 off the deck.

>A-29 operating cost:$430-500 an hour
>A-10 operating cost:$5000-6000

Don't let 35 fags hear you mention operating costs as a negative. They shit on the Warthog yet their baby is even worse on that note.

Yeah, but the F-35 can also do stuff that's not COIN.

are these the same marines that raped schoolgirls in Okinawa and now got everyone in the armed forces forced to watch rape briefings?

>30mm full-caliber API with less than 60mm penetration at 1000m
>Cold war manuals literally stated that the only place a fucking T-62 was vulnerable to the GAU 8 was from the rear at a specific slope angle
educate yourself nigga, the A-10 was already useless at tankbusting with its gun when it was put into service. A GAU-8 would seriously hatefuck a convoy of BMP-1s in an ideal scenario but the retarded amount AA slavs stick to their mechanized and armored battalions would vaporize any squadron of A-10s before they could make their first pass, let alone provide CAS

You've been on here too long man, give it a break. This should be a weekend post senpai.
>btw the recoil would send the damn thing backwards, so you would want a large, short recoil operated 30 mm like an M2, not a damn rotating cannon

I guarantee you that enlisted would stay in longer than officers.
It's an issue over passion + blue collar work ethic vs an officer's natural disposition to pragmatism.
While your dime a dozen middle to lower class person is more likely to muscle through tough, not so respectable work, and stick with it, your more qualified middle to higher class person is going to immediately jump ship to something better, something he's more qualified for.

Let me fix that for you: It's because the current top brass would first have to admit that an enlisted man is just as smart, maybe even smarter than them before allowing enlisted to ever fly again.
It's all about pride at this point, nothing more.
A fraternity of good ol' boys who live secondhand through the achievements of past pilots.

Historically, what and who won wars in the sky?
What was Germany's and Japan's fundamental pilot problem in the years leading up the end of WWII?
Who were able to perform their duties just fine without a gratuitous certificates during said war(s)?

That all being said, I personally believe that the US military has a massive leadership problem in this day and age.
Even if they did allow enlisted pilots to fly once more, I don't trust the leadership to train and discipline them well enough for them to become respectable pilots.
On the other hand though, my father knew quite a few delinquent, drunkard, and overall reprehensible pilots during his time flying in Korea, many of which were successful enlisted pilots during WWII.

Attached: IMG_309.jpg (1920x1248, 458K)

>It's because the current top brass would first have to admit that an enlisted man is just as smart, maybe even smarter than them before allowing enlisted to ever fly again.
They don't give a fuck about smarts. Why do you think officers go to a different school than enlisted personnel? Pro tip: it's not to make them "smarter" it's to weed out those without leadership and decision making aptitude and to train those skills. In WWII the name of the game was getting as many people into the air as possible who could be reasonably trusted not to crash, and that was it. Modern pilots are the investment of hundreds if not thousands of man hours of training and selection so that only the most capable individuals are entrusted with the complete control of a 120 million dollar machine filled with enough ordinance to kill everyone in a small village. If somebody can't find the willpower to force themselves through four years of college no amount of raw aptitude will make them a reliable military pilot. The common enlisted disdain for the chain of command is also not desirable when it comes to the highly procedural and high workload environment of a combat aircraft's cockpit.

Useless against modern armor, and by modern I mean anything newer than a t62... The a10 was a stoppgap solution until the real tank killer (ah64) was deployed, right now is just a cool missile hauler.

To strafe soft targets like trucks, goats and insurgents a gun pod is more than enough

>If somebody can't find the willpower to force themselves through four years of college no amount of raw aptitude will make them a reliable military pilot.
Personally, I think that ones that choose not to go to college are the potential pilots we need.
By doing so they've already demonstrated an aptitude for assessing threats and making well thought out decisions under the pressure of a life altering career choice.
Sounds like pilot material to me if they can avoid the shark's teeth that is interest rates.

Too many times have I seen kids go into student loan debt for a chance at a pilot slot.
Some make it, some don't, some wash out.
Sad stuff.

If you avoid college because you're too dumb to figure out how to pay for it without being in debt forever (get a scholarship, or a major that isn't ass, do ROTC) then you're definitely not pilot material.

When I was a kid we went to the airshow in Kecskemet and accid3ntally called the pilot of an A-10 a nigger after taking a picture with him

>being dumb is actually being smart


Thisbis how low iqs cope?