The sky-high aircraft and aviation thread

And if the A-10s were any good, the Air Force would be asking for money to get new ones rather than try to replace them.

There is more of them then the OV-10s, so that kinda backfires given the argument is that they do that at least better.

If this was about the best thing to do ever, I have always been a firm advocate of drones even over the brrrt, they loiter longer, are very cheap, and if they get shotdown doing there job who the hell cares its a robot.

But it was about the turbo-props vs the A-10, and only one of those is still in service with the air force.

The OV-10 could be brought back but I have doubts it would be anywhere as cheap as just tapping in production Turbo-Props.

You do realize the USAF is in the middle of tests likely to select a new turbo prop craft right?

Im not sure why you keep implying that the Air Force has somehow already chosen between the A-10 and a light turboprop for COIN and the A-10 won when that’s demonstrably false.

I mean it's not like the AF is experimenting with the Super Tucano, Wolverine and a few other airframes right now or anything.

It quit.

That's the point that would be demonstrated if you looked for recent information....

Actualy later in the month after that article.

The circle jerk over upgunning a cesna forgets key factors like economies of scale, and logistics inertia both of which work against them, that 40,000 per flight hour sounds like a lot to us working on a normal human sallary, but to the military that's the kind of pocket change that gets lost in the cushions of the couch, and just isn't worth it

Ironicly it's the same problem as 5.56 vs 6.5 that comes up in the gun thread but people actualy seem to get it there, it can't just be an inprovment... it has to be an inprovment worth the expense of changing supply lines, and equpment, overhauling stock, and providing new training... and well it's not.

Edited by Imca on Jul 17th 2018 at 3:36:05 AM

You do realize that quote in no way supports your position, right? Or are you intentionally misrepresenting the facts now?

The reality is that turboprop aircraft are cheaper in every way for the COIN and light CAS mission profile. Whether they're able to make it through the procurement and political end of things is a different story, and doesn't really relate to the current discussion.

It seems likely that light turboprop planes will be acquired at some point to fill out those roles, there's no reason not to. COIN didn't exist when the A-10 was designed, and the A-10 fleet doesn't have long left on it. When it ages out the clear frontrunner to replace it is something like the Bronco or Super Tucano.

Edited by archonspeaks on Jul 17th 2018 at 3:37:34 AM

Mt possition is turbo props aren't worth it, and it does suport that because if they were they would make it through all that.

That isn't another story, that's the whole argument, there not worth enough to make it through that.

My position is NOT that the A-10 is worth it, it is just already in service so it might as well be used for what it is good at, but the damn thing needs a top to bottom overhaul....

But being cheaper isn't always enough to make something worth it.

Edited by Imca on Jul 17th 2018 at 3:41:18 AM

If they weren't worth it the Air Force wouldn't bother with the multiple experimental deployments, low rate acquisitions and fly offs. Not to mention this conversation was about operational costs, not procurement costs.

You're just intentionally missing the point now.

I'll also note that procurement of 6.5mm CT weapons is moving ahead. The Army just announced they've selected 5 companies to produce readiness level 6 demonstrators by next year.

Edited by archonspeaks on Jul 17th 2018 at 3:45:31 AM

No, your the one who is, I was arguing from the start that they aren't worth it, not that they weren't cheaper to fly, go read, I aknowladged they were, but posited that the cost savings were not worth buying onto them.

A sentiment the airforce had agreed with after running those tests.

Saying that because they tested it proves it is worth it means that the M4 should have been replaced with the fish gun or ACR.... But it wasn't

You guys were the ones who laser focused on per flight costs which was never an argument I tried to make outside of the context that they alone were not enough of a reason compared to every other cost.

Edit: And the best way to demonstrate how short sighted such a laser focus is on decision making...

If operational cost is so important, do you own a Tesla? They meet every argument you guys have made about upgunning a cesna, they cost less then 1/10th the amount to operate... and are easier to care for.

Edited by Imca on Jul 17th 2018 at 3:58:57 AM

If you're not going to argue in good faith this isn't even a discussion.

Your original assertion was that the price of weapons made the flight cost savings irrelevant. When that was proven wrong, you moved the goalposts back to procurement costs, despite the fact that the Air Force (and Marines) is actively moving ahead with procurement of these aircraft.

Immy: No we understand quite well what the cost is. You have utterly failed to support your claim and are now literally fabricating information. The USAF and now the USMC are both onboard the prop driven craft drive.

You know what the two key reasons are? Reasons that have been stated, over, and over, and over? Cheaper to buy the planes and cheaper per hour to fly. Which means more craft to fly and more hours you can fly them. That means expanded mission capability and you don't need to loft more expensive aircraft to do the same missions. The fact you are so keen on ignoring is that the bulk of the craft we have been using for CAS are on the expensive side to fly especially once you start wracking up those flight hours. They are also more expensive to purchase and replace. It is worlds easier to support the manufacture and replacement of turbo props than it is the more sophisticated jet craft we use by a larger margin. Even the Scorpion Jet is cheaper than pretty much all of our other manned CAS craft period.

We could use drones but our current selections are bit limited at best and have very limited payload capacity. They are still working plans for craft that can loft more but we simply don't have them yet. We are still carrying out our drone strikes with the same variety of craft from over a decade ago.

Edited by TuefelHundenIV on Jul 17th 2018 at 6:17:15 AM

Not Irrelevant not worth it.

Because this is exactly what your doing, your ignoring the argument I am making and making about a single point, ONE point. that isn't even what was being said.

I am not moving the goal posts, you two are making the argument about something it never was in the first place.

Seriously do either of you two own a Tesla? and if not why? Because this would be the quickest way to show what is going on here.

Didn't read the quote did you Tuffy, the USAF abandoned the idea, for the reasons I have been stating, that those costs just aren't worth it in the grand scheme of other issues that you would have to deal with. The flight costs don't really matter when they aren't the biggest cost of flying an airplane.... plus they have to replace every jet, come up with new supply lines, retrain pilots and ground crews.

Maybe the Marines are still pursuing the idea, but the marines kind of do there own thing, and use equipment that is bought in so few of numbers that the other issues don't come up.

Edited by Imca on Jul 17th 2018 at 4:23:22 AM

Okay, this is just getting ridiculous. You obviously have no intention to debate this in good faith. I'll leave you with the last point that the Air Force has not abandoned the project. [1]

Moving on, what do our US tropers here think of the plan to change the AF 1 livery? Personally I rather like the "Kennedy classic", but if the new livery is done tastefully I'm not opposed to it. Someone mocked these up to show what incorporating red into the design could look like [2] and they're not terrible, but it definitely needs thought.

Edited by archonspeaks on Jul 17th 2018 at 4:26:53 AM

A) Whats the new livery look like?

B) Opposed to it on principle either way until the next president takes office, the last thing we want to deal with is "Trump Classic" for the next 40 years.

Immy: You are moving the goal posts. Your bs argument about munitions was already pretty thoroughly debunked. You have yet to provide anything resembling an actual argument or even bare bones proof for it at all.

Even your claim the USAF is not interested or has given over on the the idea is patently false. Last I checked over a billion in funding has been approved for the USAF light attack craft program alone to purchase an estimated 300 aircraft. That was just a couple months ago and they entered second phase testing not that long ago this year. Not even a month ago the USCM got 100 million set aside for there future pick of light attack aircraft. They could pick what the USAF has or they could seek something different. We won't know for a while yet given how recently they got that approval.

To try and sit there and say they have no interest and that your viewpoint is supported by the USAF action is utter dreck because the reality is the exact opposite. They have the funding, have narrowed it down to two craft finally, and another branch is getting on board with the overall light attack program.

You have completely and utterly failed to state anything to support your claims.

You did notice I pointed out that drones that are more capable are a work in progress right?

Edited by TuefelHundenIV on Jul 17th 2018 at 6:28:59 AM

Nobody has any idea yet. Trump has only said that he wants it to be red white and blue, he doesn't like the baby blue, and that it needs to be "beautiful". Paragon of taste he is not, so I'm a little worried.

So we are going to get this aren't we◊

That doesn't look too bad...for a commercial airliner. For other uses not so much. I could see it at an airshow.

I'm guessing that's what he wants. We know how he likes his planes to look.

The light blue livery has become so iconic I really don't think it should be changed, maybe unless it needs to be modified for a new aircraft.

Edited by archonspeaks on Jul 17th 2018 at 4:43:38 AM

No, I suspect what Trump wants is a custom-built gold-plated airplane shaped like a giant eagle.

Leave off the copper-red anti-fouling paint on the bottom of the plane. It's a jetliner, not a WWII heavy cruiser.

Honestly, the red is too garish, and it's not even an Air Force color (for USAF, your choices are blue, light blue, white, silver, and drab grey). You want red paint, put it on Marine One.

^ And that's why Air Force sucks. They need to paint their stuff red, so it'll go 3 times faster.

Don't forget it has to have flames.

x7: Needs some shark teeth under the windows. 'd

Edited by Teemo on Jul 17th 2018 at 9:58:08 AM