|
-
Very Active Member
 Air Force's new attack plane
Look at this, it uses a prop.  I would have expected a more A-10ish type plane.
http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the...aircraft-24356
-
Very Active Member
-
I think the difference is in the aircraft type. The A-10 is a heavy ground attack aircraft. These look much lighter - meaning their potential targets are not armored.
-
Very Active Member
There's an old saying, "Don't throw out your old ties. " Looks like old school planes are coming back.
2011 RTS (Sold to a very nice lady)
1998 Honda Valkyrie
2006 Mustang GT. Varooooom!
US Navy Veteran
SC Law Enforcement Boat Captain
CNC Machine Service Technician
President: Rolling Thunder SC1
Member: Disabled American Veterans, Rock Hill, SC
Member: American Legion
Experience is recognizing the same mistake every time you make it!  
-
Very Active Member
ATTACK PLANE
Very reminiscent of the P- 40 ....Flying Tiger ...............remember the movie Flying Tigers ....they don't make like that anymore ....... Mike 
-
-
Ozzie Ozzie Ozzie
They are intended to be Light Attack Aircraft, for use in circumstances, places, or countries where there is no need to deploy the really expensive & complex Front Line Aircraft - after all, why would you need anything more complex/expensive to destroy a back yard drug lab in a remote Afghanistan Province.... or to chase AK47 armed rebels out of a poppy field in Columbia?? They are cheap, quick, & easy to make, don't need much in the way of runway or support infrastructure, can be fitted with avionics & electronics to let them work with hi-tech & modern over-sight agencies, and they work just as well if not better than the Front line Aircraft in remote/low threat/low tech environments. It hadta happen eventually! 
2013 RT Ltd Pearl White
Ryde More, Worry Less!
-
While I agree that there's you don't use a cruise missile, if a hand grenade can do the job: there's nothing quite like a "flexing of the muscles", to loosen up the bowels of the enemy.
-
Very Active Member
if it does the job & save tax payer $$$'s then that is the way to go
-
Very Active Member
 50 cal. machine guns
As long as it has six 50 cal. machine guns in the wings, it should do just fine.
Lew L
Kaos----- Gone but not forgotten. 
2014 RTS in Circuit Yellow, farkle-ing addiction down to once every few months. ECU FLASH IS GREAT. 
-
Very Active Member
-
One thing I noticed immediately is the aircraft is a turboprop. Turbine engines don’t respond immediately to throttle input, they have to spool up. Would be at a disadvantage against an enemy with an afterburner.
-
 Originally Posted by Rogue Hawk
Yeah, it looks pretty cool. Now they just need a WW2 mascot
d
Nose art isn't PC any longer. The best you could hope for today would be a squadron insignia on the tail.
As for the P-40's, they were severely outclassed by a whole host of other aircraft - both Japanese and German. Prior to both world wars it seems the USA was really behind the 8-ball in all manner of weapons. Our ships were not first line (our torpedoes were a world class failure). Neither were our infantry weapons. Our aircraft were terribly lacking. The only thing we had going for us was the width of the Pacific Ocean, a couple of very impressive intelligence breakthroughs and some strategic mistakes by our enemies. Fortunately, most of our early failures were improved upon within the first two years of WWII and what we could not fix by quality we fixed by quantity.
-
Originally Posted by MisterP
One thing I noticed immediately is the aircraft is a turboprop. Turbine engines don’t respond immediately to throttle input, they have to spool up. Would be at a disadvantage against an enemy with an afterburner.
The Light Attack Aircraft is not designed to combat fighter aircraft.
-
 Low and slow... with lots of armor!
Kind of like an A10!
1463407404894608.jpg
Last edited by Bob Denman; 02-09-2018 at 03:45 PM.
-
Active Member
[QUOTE=RinconRyder;1335196]d
Nose art isn't PC any longer. The best you could hope for today would be a squadron insignia on the tail.
In war nobody will worry about pc correctness
-
Very Active Member
how when you are trying to kill people in a war can anything be pc?
-
Originally Posted by RinconRyder
The Light Attack Aircraft is not designed to combat fighter aircraft.
didnt say they did, but they have to respond defensively including reaction speed.
-
Very Active Member
The AT-6 features a crew of two seated in tandem under a large, largely unobstructed canopy located at the center of the design. The engine - a single Pratt & Whitney PT6A-68D turboprop engine outputting at 1,600 horsepower.
-
Originally Posted by MisterP
didnt say they did, but they have to respond defensively including reaction speed.
In the areas where they would be operating there would be a very small chance of enemy fighters (as in Afghanistan). If enemy aircraft are suspected they would be operating under a CAP - just as the A10's do.
-
Originally Posted by Bob Denman
They may be low and slow but they are some kind of agile! And the ground pounders love 'em.
-
Originally Posted by SPECTACUALR SPIDERMAN
how when you are trying to kill people in a war can anything be pc?
How long have we been at war in the Mid-East now? How many instances of PC have you witnessed during this time?
This ain't WWII.
-
Very Active Member
-
-
Posting Permissions
- You may not post new threads
- You may not post replies
- You may not post attachments
- You may not edit your posts
-
Forum Rules
|
Reply With Quote
C'mon; tell the truth!
