US pulls the trigger on A-29 super tucanos. Personally I’m stoked. Are there other cheap...

no it doesnt, that thing can mount sidewinders

Attached: 1517990197393.jpg (909x519, 87K)

See
Makes zero sense for general COIN use.

Ironic.

this
>develop a massively systems-integrated fighter/CAS aircraft that can control drones from behind the front lines
>decide not to use either it or the drones and throw some fucking turboprop in the air

We don't need to waste more money that could be going to prepare for an actual war on shit that is useful for exactly one thing. Drones could do this job 100x better, as can attack helicopters.

literally too stupid to just bring back the super tweet which is objectively better

>US pulls the trigger on A-29 super tucanos.
>Personally I’m stoked.

Yeah, they do it 15 years after Super Tucs would have been useful. Now that COIN is over for the next decade or two and near-peer is on the horizon, the USAF decides to pretend they're helping in the most useless way possible.

Drones are not more cost effective. People that say they are have little to no actual understanding of the costs involved.

If they were developing a light manned COIN aircraft and the lag time would be significant, I would agree because maybe the costs involved in real time satellite uplinks would be lower, but as it stands buying a small fleet of these off the shelf is perfectly reasonable. They're cheap as shit and can be replaced fairly quickly with no real issue

>Drones could do this job 100x better, as can attack helicopters.

Completely the reverse. Prop planes are slow enough to have useful manned eyes on scene without the constant maintenance downtime and lower loiter time of helicopters.

They're not useful in near-peer (where helicopters hug terrain) but for COIN, they're helicopters ++.

>worse than drones
They don't have the persistent surveillance ability of some modern drones, but they aren't bandwidth hogs like those drones either. Drones are to manned COIN aircraft as supersonic anti-ship missiles are to subsonics: good-enough now, but massively overrated for the previous half-century.

>Drones are not more cost effective.
Cheaper airframe when looking at the option the US is chooseing, no manned requirement which means cheaper maintenance, less training on pilots, far less risk.

Personnel and maintenance costs are far lower, which is the bulk of lifetime costs. You are a brainlet.

>muh bandwidth

These troglodytes thinks the internet is a series of tubes. Get the duck out luddite.

I even mentioned where a huge cost for drones (right now) is, brainfart.

>MUH TUBES
Yes it's retarded.

>Its not a problem because I say so!

Literally had a confirmed UCAV pilot tripfag on this board saying it was a significant cost. Where does your knowledge on the subject originate?

>Prop planes are slow enough to have useful manned eyes on scene without the constant maintenance downtime and lower loiter time of helicopters.
If being manned with a high loiter time is important for COIN, why not just have pic related with a bunch of hellfires? It could stay up in a battle all day with a high payload of weaponry, far outside the range anyone could hit it from.
>They're not useful in near-peer
This was kind of my point, the military needs to stop with this "fight the last war" thing. It's bitten them in the ass so many times now but they show no sign of stopping.

Attached: hybridblimp.jpg (1910x1000, 181K)

The whole point of the OA-X was to have a COIN/CAS platforms with someone actually sitting in the cockpit, most likely above MANPAD altitude but still with eyes on the ground. Which is something neither B-1s or drones can achieve.
It isn't as much as lag and bandwith, it's about having someone directly communicating with the JTAC/whoever's on the ground, and having a lot more flexibility in terms of weapons choice and RoE

You're the luddite, m8. Modern war uses a lot of bandwidth, and the US military satellite backbone (and rented commercial ones) doesn't have a lot. It's a known problem, a big deal throughout the 00s. Streaming shitty 640x480 video at 10 fps is already problematic.

>muh costs!
Oh I'm sorry is there a Ku band tax? Does the DoD pay a troll toll to move radio waves around? Get out.

>most likely above MANPAD altitude but still with eyes on the ground.
You are an idiot.

We could have had modern-day Mustangs, but instead we got that shit.

Attached: What could have been.jpg (750x492, 37K)

>calls me a luddite
>he thinks the sats are doing anything but relaying data

Sad.

Elaborate.

Cavaliers looked fucking amazing.

Most of them are bent pipes, and they're still choking like your mom on BBC.

>elaborate
>>he thinks the mk1 eyeball can see ground targets above 15k feet

>muh pipes!!!
Amazing...

Perfect SF/light infantry plane for a COIN environment
>cheap and easy to maintain
>can carry a wide variety of guided and unguided munitions
>can operate from unimproved dirt roads
>good size production line
I see no reason why squadrons of tucanos couldn’t be attached to an infantry unit and forward deployed out of FOBs

Attached: E6904195-955C-4C2B-908C-BD64FED620FC.jpg (1200x739, 102K)

Well, if Iran happens, COIN is most certainly not over.

>wanting unguided munitions for COIN
>perfect
What.

Unguided munitions are fine. Any danger close scenario would involve guided munitions. Bombing training camps can be done with dumb bombs.

You can use unguided bombs to destroy motor pools, fuel depots, buildings, fortifications, airfields, dug in troops etc...

>i have no idea what im talking about but i need attention
Imagine being this fucking white. No wonder jews farm your species

>retards trying to fight the last war
lmao

It’s just an extra tool for the toolbox. No need to get all upset over a few hundred million

Not all nations need jets/multi role aircraft. I believe the US is giving 12 to Nigeria. These planes would thrive in that environment.

>You can use unguided bombs to destroy motor pools, fuel depots, buildings, fortifications, airfields, dug in troops etc...
>>COIN

>implying the "training camps" are smack dab in the middle of cities

Both are retarded.

The a-29 has been flying the bulk of bombing runs in Afghanistan for the last 4 years. It Definately has its place.

Training camps can also be found in the middle of nowhere.

The reaper does all of that, and more.

the tucano fitted with antiship missles would be an excellent coastal defense plane for many nations.

Thats to train the afganis, not as use in the USAF as a coin asset.

Its a training asset.

Then you use an actual strike aircraft instead of a prop plane with a minuscule three thousand pounds of bomb capacity.

It’s what the afghan Air Force uses. Yes we trained them, but they have been actually using tucanos to good effect.

>minuscule 3,000 lb payload
It’s a dirt cheap plane to fly. It can take off from a strip and bomb targets for pennies on the dollar. Stay absolutely salty that some situations don’t require f/a 18s

There are two types of fags in this thread. Those that understand that the USAF is buying these to train the pilots that will train other shit teir nations to have some sort of air strike capacity, and those that think the USAF themselves are going to use these to strike targets.

very delusional post. it has no way to feed the location of a ship to an AShM

>It’s a dirt cheap plane to fly.
So is a wind up balsa wood rubber band plane, does not make it worth it in a military sense.

>Stay absolutely salty that some situations don’t require f/a 18s
The only one salty here is you, who thinks the tucano will be used to bomb a training camp in the middle of nowhere. Wrong tool for the job.

For extra saltyness i could state the fact that current UAV's do the job better and cheaper.

>Those that understand that the USAF is buying these to train the pilots that will train other shit teir nations to have some sort of air strike capacity
We've been doing that for a while now, but this program is explicitly about getting the USAF to fly them- they're buying a few hundred if they actually go through with it.

Aren't most AShM reliant on the launch aircraft for initial guidance ? Plus, considering the weight of those missiles and the fact A-29s aren't carrier compatible, you're probably better off with shore launchers.

But the article states that US SOF will be using the A-29

Its not a program, its an experiment. The LAR program done in 08 was completed and that was for forigen forces.

The USAF has zero intention to go beyond the experiment.

It would extend the range of a coastal defense ASM. Most countries that border an ocean don’t have any carrier capability at all. ASMs have been fitted to helicopters for a while now

Yes, it stated
>Additionally, it will support Air Force Special Operations Command (AFSOC) with the ability to accomplish its mission of Close Combat Air support to partner nations.”
>to partner nations.”

That’s exactly what we’re talking about here. Getting this plane to countries where it can be utilized and provide strike capabilities for the first time, or for much cheaper

No, WE are not talking about that here. I am talking about that, but US SOF will not be using it, neither will the USAF in a direct role. Partner nations will be.

We got fags here That thinks it will be flying next to F-15's.

>not naming the A-29 the Skyraider II
Missed opportunity imo

I mean it makes sense that it would fly with F15s. Especially if the US is involved. I imagine the AF would like to give these countries the planes and the uncontested airspace to go along with it.

>layer 1 routing doesn't exist, so you must be retarded!

never go full zoomer

>Ku Bandwidth is a problem
Never go full boomer.

Some South American countries have had great success with it in the smuggling interdiction role. There’s a video of some cia guys directing a tucano to shoot down a drug plane in Brazil. It’s also a good plane for developing countries to patrol land or sea borders.

Attached: F5417935-0B00-4F45-A6F8-C6F975E0D846.jpg (1024x568, 78K)

What sensor/optic is that fitted with?

AN/AAQ-22 Star SAFIRE II, less capable than the one on the reaper, but cleared for export. It does cut into its payload capacity.

So a pretty decent optics suit for a cheap attack aircraft. Add recon and target gathering to the list of tucano capabilities

Yes, it is a problem, as anyone working with sats or drones over the last 15 years can tell you.

>lmao how can logistics be a problem, just buy more ships
>lol chokepoints what are those, send in the tanks
>dumb soldiers, why don't they carry another 100 pounds of ammo haha

Bandwidth issues are the logistical problem of our time, and here you are telling the people dealing with them the problem doesn't exist.

Attached: 1557753054042.png (682x507, 392K)

I just want to patrol the coast of Florida with a mosquito searching for distressed boaters.

Attached: 9BE7E75F-4673-4192-B4D2-D3E234F87BA5.jpg (1200x728, 307K)

Recon has always been a point of the LIGHT ATTACK/RECON program.

>Ku is bandwidth limited
Loving every lauff. Tell me, what is the throughput of ONE EchoStar XVII

It must be great to be this dumb. He probably doesn't worry about anything. He just exists. Maybe we are the braincucks.

Finally can break out my USAF tucano fanfic

Attached: C3AF3E18-EFFB-4846-90CC-A7025C9670FB.jpg (850x457, 53K)

>ES

Barely 120 Gb/s, and it's Ka, m8. You're going to have to do better than that.

>Bombing training camps can be done with dumb bombs.
>You can use unguided bombs to destroy motor pools, fuel depots, buildings, fortifications, airfields, dug in troops etc...
Both are better done from a B-1B at 30k+ feet at comparatively zero risk to the crew.
This fucking crop duster doesn't have the payload to effectively do either anyway.

120 GB/s per transponder, yes.

How many transponders does it have again? (oh, and i can do better, the ES was launched 7 years ago)

..Yes?

Do you think satellites are a naturally occuring phenomenon, you fucking cretin?

Oh shit, i didn't realize that if we didn't use drones that the sats cost will go away!

Attached: tenor.gif (220x206, 84K)

>Which would win, that thing or P-47?
P-47 will destroy it in a gun fight.

>I just want to patrol the coast of Florida with a mosquito searching for Haitians
There we go

You would think they would read far enough to catch that the USAF is buying less than a dozen of these and the AT-6 combined.

Just remove drones, free sats confirmed. Thanks user!

Tucano haters destroyed

>USAF buys shit tier planes to train shit tier airforces
>Tucano haters destroyed

lel

Retard

We got a live one

Good. Now we wait for the retards crying about how terrible it is and laugh.

Nothing is replacing the A-10.

Based

Just like how we should of never invested money into this piece of shit.

Attached: My morning poop.jpg (780x520, 31K)

Guys, what if we had the A29's drop from the blimp?

>implying they aren't going to use it when we banana republic Venezuela