In what militaries can this plane reasonably serve?

Not every country can afford fast moving jets and guided munitions for every task. These planes are perfectly adequate for the scenario described.

turboprops need shorter runways, have better fuel efficiency, and are generally cheaper brand new

for people needing bombs on a shoestrin budget, it does exactly whats needed and nothing more
dogfighting and stealth are pretty useless to 90% of militaries on earth

I'm of the opinion that if the US suddenly needed over 100,000 fighters in a span of 2-3 years many if not most of those planes would be cheap, low tech by modern standards.

That number of planes has never been produced by any country including during WW2, you're totally out of touch with reality

Surprised no one has mentioned Coast Gaurds, good for keeping track of rogue vessels and patrolling for long periods of time.

There would never be a need for 100,000 fighters. Mass producing Air to air missles would be a thing though

wot? The Us almost made 100K in one year alone during WW2

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_aircraft_production

It literally doesn't though. PGMs are cheaper to use due to the lower number of sorties required for a specific mission. "Dogfighting" hasn't been a thing since the 80's, and it's substantially cheaper to maintain a fleet of multiroles than one of dedicated fighters and dedicated ground attack aircraft, the first being a predicate for the second in most cases.

Unless they're being used entirely to fighter guerillas, it's cheaper to have one fleet of multiroles than one for TacAir/SEAD and one for CAS/COIN

Modern jets can find and destroy targets in small numbers, unlike planes of WW2. Do you really think we will return to large, slowmoving aerial formations?

Maybe I should have said 100,000 planes and not 100k fighters. But my point that lower tech than modern standards would become far more prevalent during WW3 still stands.

I don't think 100,000 planes were ever in service by any military at any given time in history.

And far, far fewer combat aircraft; around 5000 fighters and 30,000 bombers IIRC

its cheap, its simple to operate, has low operating costs

it can carry bombs, rockets, it has guns, and thats literally all people need it to do
multiroles are useless to the people they intend to sell it to, since the air to air role is non existent

Prop planes are literally useless against jets. Too low of a ceiling for TacAir and too vulnerable to SRSAMs for counterair

Unless your plan is to only fight people without any air force or meaningful air defenses, you will need planes to perform TacAir and SEAD. If you already have those planes, it is cheaper to use them as multiroles than it is to buy more planes with lower hourly operating costs. Also, no one uses fixed-wing launched unguided rockets anymore, and guns are marginal.

>you're totally out of touch with reality
no, you are

Aircraft produced from 39 to 45:
300,557 USA
158,220 USSR
131,549 UK
119,907 Germany
76,320 Japan

That's pretty aesthetic

That’s an air force killer

>far, far fewer combat aircraft

Only Britain made:

37,705 fighters
29,516 attack planes
36,794 bombers
5,410 reconnaissance planes

during the war

>Unless your plan is to only fight people without any air force or meaningful air defenses, you will need planes to perform TacAir and SEAD
the people that plane is being sold to has literally no reason to ever run into those missions
ISIS, drug runners, the cartel have no air power, ground defences, or AA stronger than maybe a .50cal

brazil has literally zero reason to own an F-16 and the reason they made the super tucabo is because a vast majority of people on the planet do not need SEAD, air to air, or combat patrols

they need a cheap plane that costs little to run and can carry weapons

I can totally see those planes destroying an enemy airforce in a matter of hours.

>Also, no one uses fixed-wing launched unguided rockets anymore, and guns are marginal.

"On 22 March 2018, the Afghan Air Force deployed a GBU-58 Paveway II bomb from an A-29 Super Tucano in combat, marking the first time the Afghan military has dropped a laser-guided weapon against the Taliban.[27]"

...

This is the typical American overconfidence in their gee-whiz tech toys that has caused them to not win a war clean since 1945.

m.youtube.com/watch?v=cpYV9FD8-DQ

Holy shit. Cheesy music but that’s some decent footage

>In 2017, the Afghan Air Force conducted roughly 2,000 airstrike sorties, about 40 a week. The AAF had a record high in October with more than 80 missions in a single week. By March 2018, the AAF had 12 A-29s in service.

2000 sorties with not even 12 planes in one year. Do you guys really think poor, non-industrialized countries like Afghanistan can do that with jet planes?

>In what militaries can this plane reasonably serve?

Somewhere like republic of Ireland? dunno if it any good in the climate or marine

Realistically, how many Super Tucano-type aircraft could an F-15 hope to shoot down in one sortie before landing? What's stopping the Tucano blob from eating the losses, waiting for their opponents to land, and then just yeeting on them while they're grounded for a superior economic trade of assets? Stick a drone brain into the Tucanos, and now you aren't even throwing away lives.

That’s exactly the point. Some people get extremely mad if you don’t discuss cutting edge warplanes at all times.

Shitholes

>What's stopping the Tucano blob from eating the losses, waiting for their opponents to land, and then just yeeting on them while they're grounded for a superior economic trade of assets?

The fact that they’re 18 million dollars per unit.

Any attack helicopter will do the same job better.

>PGMs are cheaper to use
Tucanos can carry those too.You're not making an argument against the Tucano when you bring guided bombs.

On this same subject, how well does the CCIP system on the Super Tucano work?

It seems like it could be a good substitute for poorfag countries that can't afford smart bombs.

>Any attack helicopter will do the same job better.
In terms of helping to win the engagement, keeping your ground forces alive while killing the enemy? Most likely yes.
Doing it cost effectively? No.

>2000+ F-35s ordered

Super Tucs, at least in the OA-X requirements, were meant to carry targeting pods and PGMs. The whole point was to carry GBUs and Mavericks with a better cost-efficiency than the A-10

We would just refurbish boneyard jets. There are more there than we could ever need

If WW3 ever breaks out we're going to nuke whoever is responsible for it, because that's way cheaper than building an assload of jets.

I think its avionics are Elbit made ?
So I'm guessing about as well as their refurbished Su-25 and MiG-21.

Gulf war happened, yo. Went fabulously because of all that gee whiz tech

Name a country that has won more.

TFW 1000 p51 Mustangs equipped with modern tec fly into combat again.

Attached: proxy.duckduckgo.com.png (1162x850, 93K)

It's weird you think 2000 produced over the course of decades is anywhere close to wartime.mass production.

"War time mass production" is based on what modern wars require.

How do I get my wife to burp in my face?

Rare earth minerals are actually available in mineable quantities in a number of areas in the US. However, the environmental impact of the extraction process is so harsh, the US government will likely never approve a mining operation unless it becomes necessary due to warfare. It’s cheaper and better for the environment of the country to just import them.

Pilots will always be harder to replace than aircraft. Probably cheaper than the plane itself, but training takes time.

If WW3 ever breaks out the winner will be decided long before anyone can ramp up production on prop planes. Within a couple of months (or even weeks) one side will run out of AA defenses and the other one will decimate all of their loser's infrastructure and manufacturing in a few weeks.

The most cost efficient CAS would be someone flying a commercial drone around dropping 40mm grenades
I know you still haven't passed high school economics but cheaper does not necessarily mean better

None. Everything it can do is better done with a drone.

You’ll need hundreds and thousands of these things, and you’ll need to put new parts, engines, wings, flaps and other shit when they get damaged. 40 in a field won’t do it.

And they will have to be overhauled and serviced before those planes can reasonably fly after they are taken from that field.

Pilot training is also a big part. A supersonic jet takes a thousand hours to master. A propeller aero plane takes a few hundred to master and if one eats shit, it doesn’t cost 60million.

R u niggers saying she might fly again?

Attached: 0E5781EA-6B2E-4759-B99C-D540452E50BC.jpg (1800x951, 97K)

It’s hard to argue with someone who thinks that we would need 100s of thousands of these. Mass aerial formations aren’t a thing anymore. And there is a whole lot more than 40 jets sitting in the boneyard

Again? Iran, South Korea, Turkey, Greece and Japan still fly it. The US has moved on though, forever.

Probably about 95% of the world's airforce's. Even the other 5% could get by with replacing a lot of their jets with something like that for low intensity stuff.

Any military in select applications. Small cheap aircraft are still useful

>I'm of the opinion that if the US suddenly needed over 100,000 fighters in a span of 2-3 years many if not most of those planes would be cheap, low tech by modern standards.
Yeah but not fucking propjobs. The Jumo 004 was cheaper, easier to make and lighter than a DB605.

any that can reasonable afford it.

That's a lot of mudhens.

the US will need like a few dozen to take on the rest of the worlds combined air force

once air superiority is achieved you can switch to AtG munitions and cas aircraft
fuck off retard

>Prop bombers raining missiles and bombs on Beijing
>Escorted by turboprop fighters
>Proper dogfighting again

Stop my dick can only get so hard

Okay, lot of great points here changed my mind. Everyone should use these. T
errorist send a $500-$1000 drone toward taken out by $1000000 Patriot missile.
Who won?
I think total cost of ownership of a weapon system makes this viable. Any private pilot can operate it, cheap to maintain/replace.

The guy who fired the Patriot can afford more Patriots than the guy who launched the drone can afford his drones.
You don't understand how this works.

they are cheap and thus anyone who wants cheap will want it.

Um...
Look kid, you want to maintain an infrastructure, terrorist don't.
Funding from a masque in Minneapolis to huthies will never dry up. If it was my fight, this is exactly what I want. Let's multiply this exchange over and over again for 10 years. Just pretend that resources are endless but fascist Islamic dogma is endless.

>Um...
I don't even need to read the rest of your post to know it's about as dumb as that first word.
>masque
>huthies
Confirmed.

Brilliant analysis from McNamara's retarded nephew. Your insights in geopolitics and asymmetric multidimensional warfare are much appreciated. Could you help us understand how we can develop more expensive sophisticated weapon systems and still not get raped by vietcong? Maybe with a military buildup of nuclear weapons and space program the terrorist's centrally planned economies will callapse like the Russians.

turboprops are unironically the most boring version of a2a combat afterburning turbofans or biplanes because they offer the most dynamic and exciting dogfighting opportunities.

Attached: 1548090663083.webm (640x324, 2.48M)

I meant fly again for the forces of good
I don’t care if all those mud and bug people have them
They don’t count

10000 f35s could shoot down 10,000 f16s in one sortie.

How much would they both cost? Would you rather 10 f35 or 100 f16? Obviously you would want a proportion of both, what proportion would you have? I would have 2 F35 and 80 F16s.

in any military where you need to drop a bomb on a bunch of guys with rusty AKs cheaply and without putting wear on your much more expensive jets

Smartest post yet. A plane going down with pilot, forget the aircraft, you need to wait 3 more years for another pilot.

The DoD is looking to africa for rems. Not because of ww3 but because of trade war.

>I would have 2 F35 and 80 F16s.
What the fuck is the point of not even having a full flight of F-35s? You gonna Iran it up and use them as your AWACS?
I mean it'd work but what the fuck man.
And besides. An F-35A costs less than 10M more than a Superbug now. It's not even a fucking contest. Give me F-35s.

I'm seeing f35 at $80m versus f16 at $14.6m
How many hours in maintenance hangar for 1 hour in the air?
These are serious limitations that OP's plane, could directly address.

If you have 10 f35s and I had 100 f16s you believe that this would give you air superiority? I think you would have a 4 to 1 advantage and kill the majority of my airforce, yet still loose your airfields rendering your f35s useless. I'm just pointing out, there are compromises to focusing on beating China/Russia next gen fighters.

>>I'm seeing f35 at $80m versus f16 at $14.6m
That's an LRIP 12 F-35A (we're on LRIP 14) against an F-16A with a pulse doppler radar in 80's dollars. Whatever you're smoking, stop, it's laced. A new production Block 60 costs more than $50 million, and the current production is on Block 72. And the difference in per flight hour maintenance is barely 5 grand.
Considering the massive increase in range, massive increase in payload in non-low observable configuration, the effectiveness of the AN/APG-81, and the near omniscience of EOTS and EO-DAS, I am taking a force comprised entirely of F-35s in virtually every scenario.

Interesting, you're probably right about cost. I just compared the jets wikis, thanks for the details. Now, knowing this, I see your point, it's not a 10 to 1 cost so my hypothetical scenario would not provide me the swarm of jets in exchange for a handful of f35s

He said unguided rockets, you mentioned a laser guided one. That said, I definitely see how these propeller planes can be very useful provided you don't encounter strong AA defenses on the ground or an enemy with a.fighter jet.

>In what militaries can this plane reasonably serve?
In any that has an airforce, if for nothing less than a trainer

anybody who is doing COIN

MULTI WING DRIFTING

Because that's what was, that's what was used, at siginificant cost. Also having cheap COIN dedicated aircraft would be sensible. It was certainly discussed in the UK
thinkdefence.co.uk/2010/01/is-the-super-tucano-a-practical-option-for-the-raf/

I'd rather have an ordinance cafeteria on hand. Something that can go supersonic if the theater is large.

>ordnance cafeteria
AC-5 when?

The Congo

This, but there is massive resistance to this idea in certain air forces. Mostly due to less post retirement career opportunities to retired staff officers.

Most of those planes are old, out of flight hours and waiting for conversion to target drones for training fighter pilots or SAM crews and weapons testing.

>AC-5 when?
If you count loading up a B-1B with every type of guided munition the USAF has in inventory and keeping it on station above the theater on a constant basis for whenever anyone needs something dead, now.