The Future Of Close Air Support - Light Attack Aircraft
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 5 ต.ค. 2024
- What is going to be the future of close air support for the US? Lets take a look at one option, the light attack aircraft.
-------------Please Like, Share and Subscribe!-----------------
Want to support my channel? Check out my Patreon webpage: www.patreon.co...
Wish to donate to support my channel? - Paypal link: paypal.me/Matsimus
Come chat with me! Get Discord Free! Here is my server: / discord
Add me on Steam: Matsimus
Facebook: www.facebook.c...
Twitter: @MatsimusGaming
Like T-Shirts? - shop.spreadshi...
Matsimus Gaming
You don't need a bazooka to kill a mosquito. Sending out a F-35 or A-10 every time an Afghani or Iraqis stick an AK out of their mud hut is a serious overkill. Use the right tool for the job.
The current drones cant carry the payload to do the job. They can take out a single target with a missile but against a scattered groupof men you probably eed a completely different bird than the currentstable of drones.
An OV-10 Bronco will do the job !
But if you want "persistance" bring a AC-130 !
overkill is underrated ;)
The Broncos did a good job in Syria and for only $1000 per flight hour. The AC-130 is STILL cheaper to fly than most jets are.
Oh, like a predator drone?
what it boils down to is this: your team is on the ground and pushing into hostile territory. your budget (I know we dont like to think this way but its reality ) is $100,000 operations cost per day in CAS, would you rather have 1.5 hr of one(1x) "F/A jet", 3 hours of (1x) A-10 or (2x) A-29 for 12 hours? Your choice!
In afhanistan there is no choice really, A-29
"$100,000 operations cost per day in CAS, would you rather have 1.5 hr of one(1x) "F/A jet", 3 hours of (1x) A-10 or (2x) A-29 for 12 hours? Your choice!"
And how many pilots you'll lose in the A-29's versus the others which are less likely to be downed.
Do you want 12 hours of A-29 with a few bombs, or 3 hours of an A-10 with its cannon?
Another bonus, which is more demoralizing to an enemy, an A-29 or an A-10.
Then again, an AC-130 can accomplish most of the above while remaining outside the range of most AA.
@@dwwolf4636 In Afghanistan and other mountainous terrain, the rate of climb for an A-10 is a big advantage for and A-10 vs an A-29.
Anywhere the Islamic jihadis encounter the A 10 they unass the area as quickly as they can run. they won't do that for those turboprop mosquitos
@@8aleph lol good idea
Only in the US they look at perfectly viable weapons platforms and say "nah, that's for poor people let's design our own significantly more expensive weapons platform"
I guess that's one way to waste public money
Well, yes and no! I agree that the US too often accept cost overruns (which IMHO is a form of accepted corruption, as it's a kind of official kickback for arms companies!), but I also don't think Prop-Aircraft (unless you are talking about transport-planes and maybe AWACs!) should be anywhere near modern AA (which will shred them! I mean look at WW2, the AA-Guns of that era were enough to defeat prop-aircraft unless they had numbers on their side! Now imagine those with modern radar and computer-guidance and add homing missiles to the mix and your prop aircraft is SCRAP METALL!)...hell, even the old AA will down those things...also it's not like terrorists don't get access to modern weapons (they have stinger-missiles left over from the 80's and russian MANPADs)
@@dreamingflurry2729 Yes but those threats are the same for the current fleet of attack helicopters. Are those obsolete too?
It is for poor people. We have A-10s and these confer no benefit over them other than cost. I will gladly throw money at the A-10 because it does CAS better than almost anything else in the world.
@@JohnnyKaw11B Enjoy your crippling debt and inadequate health insurance
Fast forward to 2019. The Afghan air force has received 20 Embraer EMB 314 Super Tucano. The Pentagon purchased the Super Tucanos in a $427 million contract with Sierra Nevada Corp. and Embraer, with the aircraft produced at Embraer's facility on the grounds of Jacksonville International Airport in Jacksonville, Florida. 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. 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. In other words. Afghanistan is flying this thing at a fraction of what it costs to buy and service an F-16 or F-18 and having amazing success against the Taliban. Why would you fly an F-16 which costs 9 thousand dollars an hour to operate to drop a bomb on a goat herder with an AK-47 when you can do the same job with a Super Tucano coming in at 1 thousand dollars an hour.
I am from Brazil the original program of super tucano is not one aircraft only for cas is orginaly project for interceptions in low speed but is work so good for cas .
@@pedrokize Make interceptor of drug airplanes on the cheap to turn into a great CAS. Perhaps the gringo are learning the way of gambiarra.
It costs around 500 an hour to run so its even cheaper than that.
@@abrunosON Now they now the power of gambiarra
Goat herders with AKs are part of a global cabal to bankrupt the USA.
Cheap and easy to maintain. The US Air Force won't buy it.
Alan Fox they already planned for it
Bet the Russians might. This fits their weapon philosophy to a T. Cheap. Easy to maintain in the field.. Able to be manufactured in large numbers.
@@WastelandSeven the russians have a lot of weapons, like usa, and are trying to dump those for anyone who wants. So i think they will stick with helicopters and jets until they sell them all. To make them look good.
They did tho
Wait but they did????
Once air superiority is achieved, these CAS aircraft make a lot of sense.
@Thedwarvenpower i HATE IT WHEN THAT HAPPENS
@Thedwarvenpower Assuming he can get a lock on a turboprop with a missile designed to target jet exhaust.
@@atomicskull6405 very interesting! Didn't think of that!
@Thedwarvenpower Dig up the plans for the PLT27 (a flight weight version of the ATG1500) modernize as necessary using the current ATG1500 design and use that as the powerplant. It has a heat exchanger that recycles exhaust heat back into the burner which increases efficiency and as a side benefit reduces exhaust heat (less waste heat - cooler exhaust). Diffuse the exhaust and place the exhaust ports on top of the wings where they will hidden from the ground.
@@atomicskull6405 How much more bulk and cost would you say?
Bring back the Stuka.
Maybe just attach a siren to a Super Tucano?
trycoldman23 yessss!
Those terrorist won’t know what hit em
Yes scare them away with the stuka
It is the gull winged EMB-387 Super Stukano !
I don't know why, but the idea of prop CAS aircraft being brought back to modern forces makes me deeply happy.... Seeing a prop aircraft with bombs and rockets makes me tingly.
Bring back the Wyvern...! ;)
Positive Anion haha war thunder memes
Haha I actually play War thunder...put don't spend money so no Wyvern for me.... ^^
I can't CAS that well in the game
Dang it laptop
The USAF cool kids don't want a turboprop. A drone turboprop is another matter though.
+Saltofpetra -+ I agree with the turboprop best left to drones standpoint but the Scorpion does everything a turboprop can and more (except has a slightly higher stall speed).
Notice what they're replacing Vietnam era C-130s with? Brand new C-130s. Turbo prop aircraft still have a place in the air.
In Brazil, we have started replacing the legendary C-130 by the new brazilian-made C-390 millennium.
Victor though our C-390 would not be as suited for the gunship role
@@rodrigues2793101 C-390 is more comparable to a globemaster
Damn straight. Bring back the Mustang!!!
@@amistrophy yeah
'Murica, where we use pile drivers to hammer nails. But as any grunt knows, you want that aircraft to stay around as long as possible. Even if their out of munitions, they can still track enemy movement.
So, pretty much an A10?
+Ca11MeKARMA Not really. The A-10 can't last forever but until these things started to appear there was no realistic alternative. The notion that an F-35 can do serious CAS is absurd and these things are the best illustration why. But in fact, all this is pointed out in this video anyway.
@@thethirdman225 I think that the F-35, seeing as it has good senory equipment, may be better as a frontline bomber at 3500 km alt. This is because it is not as rugged as a CAS aircraft needs to be, and it has compatibility for many smart-weapons, e.g. smart bombs. At such an altitude it would also provide useful reconnaisance data to the boys on the ground. However, such a role would not actually be CAS, and so when fighting low-tech enemies without much in the way of airpower or even effective anti-air equipment, a dedicated CAS craft would be handy.
@@thethirdman225 For serious CAS call 1-800-Gun-Ship.
@@Skywalker8562 True but not ideal for low altitude and much more expensive to operate.
As soon as I saw the turbo prop, I was like, that makes sense. Slow(er) speeds would be better for target engagement, better maneuverability, and better intel for follow up (not sure if to a useful extent, but it's something) Prop craft can hang out in one place for longer, are cheaper than jet craft, probably have a better survivability, heat seekers may be thrown off the trail of a prop craft since they don't have the heat in the back end. And I really love that it looks like a mustang, most of my favorite war birds are from WWII, the Mustang, Hellcat, Spitfire, BF-109, Zero....
James Hunter problem with slow is time to target increases, when you need CAS you generally want it asap. They also tend to have lower capacity than jets and operate much lower. You need serious tech to bring down an f16. You need a manpad to take down a super tucano type aircraft.
A-10 has cruise speed of 560km/h, while super tucano 520km/h and you can operate super tucano from any airfield, so that could be often closer to location that needs CAS. It has of course lower armament capacity but in low intensity fights, one Mk.82 can be enough to beat the enemy, and it can carry 5 of those. And heatseeking manpads are not so good against turboprop as well because they have low temperature exhaust fumes plus it has flares AND chaffs. IMO its very good plane for low intensity war. Not that cheap to purchase, but very cheap to operate.
The T6 can operate from a 4000 ft runway, according to the operations limits.
keith moore problem is justifying the cost to make a new plane
keith moore we can keep modifying the T6 since we have loads of them, and they are some pretty cool planes. Really good flight characteristics
having friendly planes in the skies will always boost soldier morale
@J Thorsson what if we fight on our "homes" like in philipines.
@J Thorsson or when talking about draft or conscript.
Hey, embraer Super Tucanos. Finally someone remembers advanced trainers/light attack. Most armies in the world need cost-effective aircraft, not only top notch, absurdly advanced and expensive attack fighters. Cheers from Brazil.
The Us isn't most armies though ^^
LtKharn until they need to start replacing F35s in a war, then the insane price tag becomes an issue even for the US very quickly
Tentacles Shorts in Belfast, Northern Ireland built a variant for the RAF. I worked on them for 4 years
Super Tucano isn't anything genius, it's just a nice little workhorse that does the job well, and does it cheap. That's kinda what makes it genius, in a way.
@p51mustang24 Read what you've written and check it's logic.
It is a very good idea on several levels. Problem is Matsimus, the military procurement process in the US of A. They favor high profit, big dollar projects. Perfect example took place during conflict in Southeast Asia. The A-1 SkyRaider had it all. Nothing could compare to payload, accurate delivery. Loiter time over target. Nope. They went with expensive fast movers. And friendly fire deaths increased.
True, but they had to account for Cold War/ WWIII looming, so the A-10 was also built on both Rudel's Stuka experience, COIN and CAS in Vietnam and the need to stop Soviet shock armies by the masses in the Fulda Gap. There were admittedly a bunch of proxy wars in the 60ies - 80ies, but the failed states after the Berlin Wall came down made the A-10 the overkill that was great but too great. So with a balanced approach with the Tucanos or Puchara any UN peace keeping mission, any low intensity conflict, Afghanistan and Iraq plus drone wars would have been the natural application field of turboprop, loitering capable, affordable CAS. But I guess, we mostly agree anyway :-).
P.S.: And just for Skyraider supplement, old P-47's would have been the natural choice.... I digress.
Well they did keep the A-1's in production for like 15 years and flew the A-1's until their airframes were dangerously worn out, and even did studies to see if it would be feasible to restart production on them in the 70's (I think they found that the factory tooling had been destroyed or lost so that killed the plan to restart production), so at least some of them were thinking straight.
Generals kickbacks for fancy jets are to be considered
@@Walterwaltraud Just a thought. Check out the Typhoons RAF were using in ground attack after D-Day. Specifically the fat rockets that the Brits made and I think only the Tiffy's carried. These rockets were hell on the the Panzercorp. Also, 4 × 20 mm wing mounted cannons, are superior even to 8 Browning .50 call. Especially against armor and light armor. Armor piercing 20mm from above and behind, game over King Tiger.
I remember back near the whole Contra controversy era of someone criticizing the US for trying to sell Columbia jet fighters when what they really needed were Corsairs.
But, here's the thing. You can field ten fully kitted out prop planes for the cost of one A-10. Maybe more. And for infantry support, like the saying goes, all hail the bullet storm. I'd also point out that Predator drones are also prop planes. Nobody is saying they weren't effective.
Use the right tool for the right job. Keep your high end jet fighters where they make sense. Use prop planes where they make sense.
Its not obsolete technology if it still gets the job done.
It's so weird seeing a turboprop military-type plane in the modern-age.
Blackforest98 I agree but they make complete sense
I do agree on that as well.
Can't deny that they have massive advantages along with the fact that they look gorgeous.
Blackforest98 and you get to put faces on them... :)
Blackforest98 is it? C-130, that flying radar thingy, helicopters ( in a manner ). It's that these small ones are usually jets now, for no real reason
We need a stuka siren on this thing.
Ahh the Brazilian made Colombian approved A29 Super Tucano is the best cost effective COIN plane in the world.
Don't let the looks fool you, avionics are 4th Gen. And the payload is really good. In Colombia they changed the game in a 50 yr insurgency civil war fueled by drugs... So when you see asymmetrical conflicts come finally to an end then you must give the proper credit to this planes.
Pampa lll
The conflicts in the Middle East won't stop because of a single plane.
@@JAnx01 itll make them cheaper
The Tucano is extremely expensive for a propeller plane. Almost as much as an A-10 iirc
That Tucano bullshit it's hated by almost every Colombian Air Force Officer, it has low capabilities, the brazilians made some of them poorly, so the Air Force had to unbuild them and build them again, but this time well.
Also it's expensive like hell, almost like a fine A-10 Warthog.
You made me remember the A1 Skyraider, a big heavy propeller brute of an attack plane that came out of late WWII development and served in the US military into the Vietnam War. It was intended for Carrier use originally, but it was one of those rare combat aircraft in the US to see action with multiple services, kind of like how the F-4 Phantom did. Skyraider brought a lot of ordnance and long loiter time.
I was in the Marines, worked in the Air Wing in maintenance. I remember doing a leadership "Advanced Course" for Gunnery Sergeants (E-7), was talking to some of my classmates, a bunch who came from combat arms / ground side who spent time in Afghanistan and "The Sandbox." They liked the impact of the jets like the Hornet and all that, but a complaint they had was that they don't stick around for more. Which was why the grunts loved attack helicopters because they stayed for the fight.
In my opinion Embraers Super Tucano is the greatest thing one can think of to have in air. I love it! No, I am not so much into military stuff, but this thing is a diamond amoungst air frames.
Btw.: Propellers do generally have a greater efficiency in air than turbines do. So there is a good reason for using propeller aircrafts... Efficiency does play a role when it comes for the time being in air in proximity to a battle field.
I also think the super tucano is beautiful!
@@asagk propellers are more eficiently when the engine is a conventional 4 cycles piston. The response is more quikly than turboprop motors. And when the scebario is in higlands like tge one showed is betterm of course a turboprop engine got more power but need more time to increase it
@@ESPARTACO1731 Yes, that is true, turbines do not react very fast to load change. But the Super Tucano certainly is a nice piece of air frame, and some sort of combat against any 4-stroke engine plane might not be seen these days, since there are so extremly few that still come with 4-stroke engines. So I would not worry about that too much really. But as said, I am not too much into military stuff. I more kinda like the thing as something that can fly nice and efficiently, since it uses an air-propeller instead of an air-turbine-drive. And that is a very good choice indeed!
I would have preferred the AT-6B Wolverine, personally.
The A1 sky raider was a damn fine Close support Aircraft.
It was unbearably heavy and slow however
@@Kay_213_ You want slow though. Slow and time on target.
good point, but you dont want to be limited by your speed either
Was the sky raider any slower than the A10 is now ?
maybe faster in a dive than the a-10 in level flight, but no the A-10 could definetly outrun it
i have nothing against the tucano or whatever but the skyraider had its drawbacks
You know, the Philippine Air Force is considering the Super Tucano for its CAS aircraft, using it on counter insurgency roles, as part of its modernisation program. Found to be the favourite of the pilots.
Maybe you should do one about the Super Tucano.
Theyre using SIAI-Marchetti SF.260 which are turbo prop with 2 hard points and OV-10 Bronco for counter insurgency right now
OV-10 Broncos is a venerable platform too. Sad to see these bad boys being replaced in the future.
jomar guilas the sad thing is thou that our OV10 doesn't have there regular rocket pods
jomar guilas Which is like, one of the items they want to replace though
Wait I thought we were watching the Super Tucano in the vid
Someone please contact Ilyushin to bring back the Il-2 Sturmovik.
Ziad AL-Abbady lol
Rip and tear like it's 1944
i hate the il-2 the engine was far too weak for such a heavy aircraft, bring back the Fairey Firefly
Su-25 is better in every respect. + Russia has Su-34 which is a dedicated fighter-bomber with high survivability. Their attack helis are also pretty much all capable of getting down and dirty like an attack aircraft. That's the combo they are using in Syria.
Ironically the IL-2 is the second most produced aircraft in history, so there's probably more than a fair few still flying around
Bet large PMC's will be running with these guys in the next ten years
They have it. But mostly mil hind 24
There is already 2 PMC’s that operate A29 Super Tucanos
tbh the MI-24 is so amazing, i really dont see the point in using super tucanos
@@gamingrex2930 The MI-24 is pretty bad ass. What about MI-24s alongside Super Tucanos? Just asking.
What about modifying a Fouga Magister Jet? Just add a 25mm Autocannon and a couple crude "ordnance barrels" pairs on the wings and BAM - CAS made cheap.
Greetings from Brazil! Sometimes less is more! I live near an airbase and you only hear the A-29 Tucano when it is right on top of you, I've always wondered why the US used expensive jets in Iraq and Afghanistan with those "off the shelf" almost ready to fly aircraft available.
Lucas I greetings from Canada! Thanks for your info and option! Hope you enjoyed the video and thanks so much for watching!! 👍🙂
Some of us Americans wonder too. I've always thought the super tucano would have been perfect in the middle east. The fighter jets cost anywhere from $5000 - $20,000 for every single hour of flight time, not including cost of munitions! Aircraft like this can be flown for a few hundred an hour, tops.
Granted I think a lot of us realized a long time ago that the whole project in the middle east was a waste of time, as soon as we leave they will go back to living the way they always have. You can't just roll in and make a place into a western democracy if it doesn't want to be.
Exactly right, well said! Greetings from france!
There is an AT-6 variant being looked at. The USAF and USN already use the T-6.
I don't care what any penile compensator says, if I was an airforce/marine/navy/army fighter pilot... I'd wanna fly one of these things. Low, nimble, quick, light... mmmm
Bit late to comment but I would want it to be less nimble, quick, light than Study, strong, controllable instead.
Like, I want an extra plate under my seat, perhaps two on the side and one on the front, in fact, just wrap me in a set of armor too.
You basically want a flying metal bathtub. We already have one of those. It's called an A-10.
@@BungieStudios Precisely, thats why I overcompensate by driving A-10 in Arma 3 and DCS.
I mean, it is quite fucking insane to drive A-10 in DCS against modern fighter, i know i will die but I just cant help it.
If you play war thunder mmmmm
Synystr7 Uhh... I know you. We have raced together. Small world.
It'll never happen in the US, because generals can't get millions in kickbacks from low cost weapons systems.
@dwiggins01 противозаконное там есть ! они оказывают поддержку оружейникам заранее , взаймы , авансом . потом выходят на пенсию и их берут на работу в эти фирмы . это все известно . но так то да , по закону не подкопаешся !
dwiggins01 Yes, but they can vote on appropriations based on that future, well paying job. It may not be illegal, but it’s scummy as fuck & wastes vast amounts of taxpayer money. But the worst part is it doesn’t give our soldiers the best equipment, cause these bastards are too busy making sure the appropriate contacts are given out, regardless of whether or not its best option.
They definitely can be more effective at small jobs than jets. I want a plane like that.
welp, he said it
I heard in rumour control it's the Americans idea to use the light attack aircraft.
Sucks that the a10 seems to have seen its final days. Such a cool aircraft
Forever brrrrrrrrrttt mr a10 forever brrrrrrrrrttt....
I wouldn't worry too much about it. 5 will get you 20 that the Marines will be picking up any remaining units and adding them to their own air wings.
Trans-Dimensional Cross Dressing Cabbage The 3rd brrrrrrrt in peace
pwrserge83 you sure the corps could afford the ammo?
Actually due to Putin's sabre rattling and re-armament program the powers that be have apparently decided to extend the A-10s service life and upgrade the fleet. So, er, thanks Putin?
Super A-10 is expected !
Massively underrated. The labour pool for these designs is massive and the training period short/intensive. Canada for instance has a sizeable pool of pilots ready for designs like this just from those with hours up north. Doctrine can adjust to their vulnerabilities.
As a former US Army aviator-- a crewchief on the UH-60 Blackhawk, I was surprised (pleasantly) when the Lakota light helicopter was brought on-line to take over domestic duties that were only adding to the wear & tear on the larger, more-expensive-to-operate Blackhawk.
So, case in point, cooler heads can prevail at the top brass level, once they realize they can get more operational life out of their more expensive toys by buying cheaper ones.
And, honestly, I never saw a General turn down a "new airplane" when it was being offered to them-- even small, inexpensive ones like the Tucano (incidentally, my favorite design of all these "new build" LA aircraft)...
The lineage with the P-51 shows, doesn't it? About the same size is the Beechcraft jet - a little faster, not much, and it uses engines that the mil already has spares for. Your last ppg is interesting- the AF does have a problem with pouring money down what they see as a very fast moving plane, only to accept 80-90% of that in the delivered system. More reality; go ask the (actual "done it and done it well) the mission planners and pilots who do these missions- the only Generals flying are collecting flight pay to go on vacation!
I checked out the wiki on the Tucano planes, those things have already done some serious work all over the world! Seems like a winner plane.
@@saffakanera Don't count your Tucanos to soon; the Pentagon Contracts and Purchasing system is among the more arcane operated by the Federal bureaucracy- in the '70s, with more than a billion dollars into it, the Five sided Cookie Factory pushed forwards with he Sgt York mobile platform "to shoot down enemy helicopters'. Another solution to the problem was offered by the Administrator of one of the dozens of arsenal warehouses the Mil operate- a "missile in a box", designed to be carried up to four a time by a jeep; the first time the lash up was tried it showed promise- a few more tweeks and the film they sent the Procurement Office showed them actually dropping a helicopter drone- Sgt. York's tank only dropped one and it was a salvage machine made of scrap parts flown on a tether, eight times bigger than the drone the "box" rig shot down. The "of the shelf problem" resulted in the Facilities administrator and several others being disciplined- Sgt York tank rumbled on for another couple of years before it was scrapped; we did get the new stabilized track suspension under the M1A1 tank from this investment, but little else.
Know what i want? A small turboprop gunship to take the role of the Apache. I don’t see it happening but a fixed wing turboprop would make it a so much less complex and more dependable aircraft in every way.
As long as they can survive tons of damage like the p-47. I'll fly it
Isaiah Pacheco lol
Isaiah Pacheco it really doesn't...
Recent tests show it probably won't be hit. Check the part about it being unsurvivable (but remember, the author is being _very_ sarcastic about the so-called 5th gen fighter):
warontherocks.com/2017/11/oa-x-strikes-back-eight-myths-light-attack/
Sounds like a game of War Thunder is in cue.
Classical Music Starts Playing*
Aw shit, here we go again
One of the jewels of the Brazillian Airforce. The Gripen will soon join the ranks
Gripen is awesome, VSTOL capable
Gripen's will be reserved for yeeting Venezuela back to the stone age.
I’d take Brazil’s Gripens over Venezuela’s SU30MK2s any day of the week.
@@kurousagi8155 actually, su35 was a contender against gripen ng in brazil. I glad we choose gripen because russia would block us from attacking venezuela if we had the su35, like the french send the exocet codes to britains in the falklands war of 1982.
You guys are getting Gripens?
Cool!
A-29 Super Tucano ❤
Everson Yuri also fragile, but very very cheap, long loiter, small logistics tail, and a relatively low heat signature. If the only thing shooting at you are MANPADS and you have Mavericks and decent gun armament... why not.
A-10 Thunderbolt II ♥️
Poxa um brasileiro aqui ne um vídeo americano😃😃😀
Maria Vitória Matsimus é inglês e mora no Canadá...
Pampa lll 2019
The Super Tucano & similar are bad ass, long range flight little monsters, updated equipped & very well tested by different air forces for many years in the most hostile environments imaginable that shouldn´t be under estimated. Using super jets at low speeds in certain tactical missions is absurd, dangerous and extremely expensive (very well explained in the video). Like having Popeye waste a couple of spinach cans just to sweep the kitchen floor. These compact crafts should also help delay the discard date of the costly to operate top fast vessels which is roughly after 8000 flight hours.
When I was in the Marines from 89-93 we called in OV-10 Broncos all the time for close air support. They were just as good as FA-18s and more accurate in certain roles. I would love to see A-1 Skyraider type aircraft for the Marines to support ground troops in places like Afghanistan.
for a bit more payload than a OV-10 I would consider the A-37 dragonfly.
skyraider has a bunch of downsides and is to old to effectively upgrade I fear.
F-16 Block 50: 0.9 MPG
(Cruising at altitude)
A-29 SuperTucano: 6.4 MPG
(Cruising at altitude)
I think the whole idea of using modernized props with all the new technology and bells and whistles is a great idea. Usually war is "Give it all or give it nothing". Not anymore though. These small, light, planes could be extremely useful and I think big, heavy, fast aircraft are going the same way as the tank. Tanks are being taken out of service and being replaced with lighter, faster, less heavily armed vehicles that don't pack the punch and don't have nearly as much Armour but are still more than adequate for the job at hand. Sending a tank in to kill two terrorists armed with an RPG and a couple of AK's is overkill. Sure, you can be almost certain that it's going to do the job but so will say.... a warrior with a 30mm cannon. Same deal with planes. Although I think the major advantage of these planes other than running cost savings will be the simple fact that you can have more of them. I've watched documentaries about troops in Iraq or Afghanistan. Sometimes when they call for air support they are simply told "There is none available, it's all occupied". I'm not sure how much these light planes cost but say you can get even 4 of them for the cost of a single Harrier or A-10. That is a lot more resources available to be called upon. Think angry swarm of bees instead of great big vulture.
I think it's 8 to 10 for each A-10, that counting everything from acquisition to maintenance
@@MihzvolWuriar The A10 fleet is way over it's planned total use at retirement age- two gallon buckets of hundred dollar bills per hour ($15,000) to fly, without ammo and stores- some of the missles it shares are 100K a piece.
@@MihzvolWuriar that's the same math I came up with. You're likely to get about 10 of these light attack aircraft if you stretch your budget for one modern jet fighter. That's a hell of a lot of close air support that can be on station all day. Sure doesn't make sense in every situation but since we Americans have largely turned into a police force we often don't need the Heavy Hitters
Granted cost effective aside im worried that our war robots will fall into enemy hands. Or heres another scenario what if someone could wirelessly hack one of them when its driving next to our guys on patrol and it either shoots all of them or detonates its denial bomb pack
War is just violent politics. All out wars are rare these days. Instead we have to fight endless low intensity "conflicts". Without cheaper options even the mightiest superpower will go broke.
The OV-10 Bronco made a comeback in the U.S. Air Force in 2009, and a year or so later the U.S. Marine Corpse likewise brought back their Broncos.
These light attack aircraft were very effective in Vietnam . The A-10 is not going away . The DOD is going to have 350 A-10s wings rebuilt . The A-10 operating cost is $ 17,000 an hour to operate . The US is looking at three different light attack aircraft now . The operating cost for these aircraft is around $ 3000 an hour plus the can operate without paved runways . I completely agree with every thing you stated about these aircraft . Awesome video again .
time to bring back the stukas
Not sure about how well the Jericho sirens would fair, as they can be considered weapons of psychological warfare.
Scribe Hammar the pilots hated them more than the ground troops did lol
Matsimus Gaming Never knew that.
Depends what you mean, the early version you couldn't turn off so they made that noise when ever they were going fast enough, which was a lot of the time.
Swarms of Stuka drones.
I think it is a stellar idea to bring back aircraft like this . They are perfect for the current Insurgency type conflicts the west is involved in. I am a veteran and experienced close air support with all sorts of Air Force Jets , helicopters, and AC130 Gunships .
Plus the cost an length of training would decrease compared to a Jet like the F15.
Look how successful Rhodesia was in Using the Cessna Skymaster 336, in a close air support aircraft.
Keep up the great videos.
The Super Tucano operates at a cost of about $800 per hour of flight, an A-10 Thunderbolt II operates at a cost of $15,000 per hour of flight. For an area that is already under control, the firepower of an A-10 is excessive as well as its operational cost, not counting the fact that for the money of the operational cost of an A-10 would operate on about 16 Super Tucano, is a very good airplane for pilots in training and veteran pilots. There is also the fact that for special
Ulisses Souza if it was under control wouldn't need close air support long live the wart hog
Cool, now calculate what it cost to train those pilots. Then tell me which is cheaper
@@kurthisroyalfattness9182 training cost same u get trained as a pilot then certified on type
@@richardpierce4680 right but you need less pilots with the warhog
@@kurthisroyalfattness9182 Not really, if you account for pilot fatigue (and maintenance crews). 24 hrs overhead, 12 day, 12 night over a failed state with guerilla, non-contested airsparce. You were right if all resistence was squashed on a few passes. But if you use the example, cost effectiveness is still much higher with the turboprop.
Well, the Super Tucano has had good results at COIN operations in Colombia since some years ago. Reading the accounts of former guerrillas is revealing, they feared the strafing from this planes. Guerrilla camps in the jungles and mountains of Colombia were hard to pinpoint, the few jets the FAC (Colombia Air Force) were not always suitable for COIN and too expensive to run. The Brazilian SuperTucano in combination with the AH-60L helicopters offered the best solution (so far).
Colombia is a textbook case of what the Super Tucano can do. Use turboprops, choppers, special forces and drones to sniff out the guerrillas and they send the jets and Spooky to drop the heavy stuff on them.
Boeing could manufacture a updated OV10 Bronco, proven design for recon and CAS as well as casualty pick up, resup, and downed pilot pick up and much more. Good Loiter time, range and weapons load for CAS. 👍😁
Finally. I've been asking for something like this for longer than I can remember. The average fighter/CAS aircraft costs about $40,000 dollars an hour to keep in the air primarily for maintenance. Add the initial costs of about $60 million and you've got an expensive tool. The average low intensity conflict like Iraq has any air threat gone after 5 days of the war's start with almost everything destroyed within the first 24 hours. The only things left are really just MANPADS as its far easier to hide a shoulder launched weapon with no signature than a vehicle mounted weapon with a radar signature. MANPADS reach about 10k altitude, guns become ineffective above about 5k altitude, and so you're left with a very large safe area, precisely why the A-10 designed to be flown in the cold war at very low altitudes is usually flown at 20k or above in a low intensity conflict zone. The only thing I disagree with is the loiter time, however. A conventional aircraft might be significantly less fuel efficient, but it also has a very powerful engine capable of taking off with a far higher payload - that means more fuel. Particularly in Afghanistan where you have very high altitudes aircraft are already struggling for payload and so a light single prop aircraft will simply carry less fuel than a large twin engine jet aircraft like the F15E.
Also I'm very surprised if anyone is using the excuse of an F35 to avoid this type of aircraft, if anything the F35 seems like an argument FOR buying these aircraft. If the issue is having too few aircraft and no threats outside the first few days of war then surely the perfect compliment to an ultra expensive ultra high performance aircraft would be a mass of cheap aircraft usable for the rest of the war all for the price of 2 F35 aircraft? That way you'd be able to push the F35 towards missions where its high performance is required rather than leaving it fulfilling the missions any aircraft can perform. I also see people pointing regularly towards drones which is also not an option - CAS you need the aircraft to respond as quickly as possible with an excellent vision of the area. Drones might be cheap with a huge loiter time but they also respond very slowly with vision described as "looking through a straw". There is a reason they are used almost exclusively for observation and CAS is left to the manned aircraft.
@Olivia Lambert Sorry, I didn't quite understand this bit:
_"MANPADS reach about 10k altitude, guns become ineffective above about 5k altitude, and so you're left with a very large safe area, precisely why the A-10 designed to be flown in the cold war at very low altitudes is usually flown at 20k or above in a low intensity conflict zone."_
Otherwise I agree with everything you said with the added advantage the these things can be operated from austere airfields that couldn't possibly support an F-16, much less an F-35.
Uhm, young lady, do you require an urgent medical assistance? A rather attractive young women exhibiting an extensive knowledge on military issues... I mean... What ze fuch?
Most things are right about what you said, except 2;
MANPADS can't hit anything at the alt you stated, IRL they fly at a max range of just around 3000m
Even the ground based sidewinders you see on some AA platforms can't get that high, and the sidewinder is a much bigger missile.
Nextly, the fuel consumption of a typical turboprop is around 300kg/h
That means That a turboprop can loiter for up to 5h, in comparison; a F-16 can only do around 40min - 2h and the A-10 is at 3h loiter time max.
@Iron_Physik Not to mention the fact that these aircraft can operate from austere landing strips which can be much closer to the front line, improving loiter times because transit times are so much shorter. These things are a win/win. When they participated in Green Flag, there was a prize for any MANPADS crew who could get a bead on one. So the cream of the USMC using the latest Stinger missiles tried as hard as they could with no result.
@@janchovanec8624 ikr who is she.
I've seen the Swiss use some of their turboprop trainers for monitoring airspace down low in the valleys during the Davos Conference. Quiet, slow enough, long loiter time. Appropriate and effective.
Honestly props are the better option for CAS, the douglas skyraider is an good example of a good CAS prop, it could stay on station for up to 12 hours at a time and carry a shit load of ordnance.
How about 2 propeller engines and a 30mm GAU-8 in front? Maybe its a good thing to replace A-10
Katie pretty sure the GAU would stall out the aircraft.
the A10 stalls if the burst from the GAU-8 is longer then a few seconds I believe... so yes, a prop would not fly quick enough for that, and there is the weight it is...
Mosquito could fire 40mm plus auto cannon. 40mm airbus round with proximity fuse could be just as good VS infantry and light vics
ROF is not as fast as the GAU, so it can still be controlled.
Andrew Coetzee Modern Hs 129 when?
Another popular ground strike turboprop is the Airtractor duster plane.
It is made for stable, low-level flight.
I know CAS needs to change, but damn, I LOVE the A-10.
yeah, me too. Love that ugly warthog
They kinda look like modernized Stuka's
Akpavasuthi Komkit but 3x faster+more agile+huge payload
matheusgc02 BF4 and other games and no sirens lol
Matsimus Gaming that too
Additional points for the "Super tucano": It's easy to learn, easy to fly, easy to start, easy to land, easy to maintain, easy to transport. While is quite formidable in its role.
Turbo prop CAS should be used by private contractors that work for the us gov...
The use of PMC's are illegal under the constitution.
**Cough cough** Iraq is calling **Cough cough**
4 Tonnes of Fury that's only inside the us borders there no rules in the constitution about PMCs foreign counties
As a former Security Operator, there are a lot of rules about PMC's. Basically if you are an armed force in an active war zone and not a member of participanting force you are considered a "Mercenary" and are not afforded some rights that normal combatants as your involvement is illegal under UN guidelines.
I joined in '08 and by then the guidelines on PMC's and PSS's ("private security services", they tried to rebrand after the Blackwater/Xe services/Academi massacre) were much stricter. Also by then most contractors were working either in the Green Zone for visiting VIP's or attached to a company to protect assets. As a whole we were generally disregarded by the average soldiers because we had way better equipment (despite the vast majority of operators being veterans who were double dipping) the whole Blackwater incident put the entire industry in a, justifiably , bad light.
Pinkerton Act
I'd say light jets such as our L-159 are a good compromise, providing cheap platform of high capability, which is easy to maintain and run. However, it's loud. Having had Ample Strike 2017 happening over my house, you could hear them from quite some distance, but still a neat plane to have around, even battle proven (at least L-39, the older brother of it without the electronics is).
19Koty96 true true
The L159 is a stillborn baby. The niche for future CAS is very tight and L159 has too many overlaps, too slow for fighter, too expensive for CAS + there were some bad decisions (ie. expensive US avionics, that prevents the plane to be sold on traditional L39 markets). Great CAS designs (Ju 87, Il-2, A10, even the L39 or EMB 314) were all purpose driven. ALCA is just another aluminum plated ego, build and designed to keep several companies afloat in late 90's. The result is bad karma and business disaster. But the ultimate goal is was met. Those companies survived and at least one of them is doing great. Finger crossed for L-39NG
Yeah but it's ungodly ugly.
It keeps operating (and procurement + training!!!) cost down, and is survivable in the scenarios in the A-10 is survivable. That makes it good by any standard
I don't know man, is it? The A-10 can take a beating. The plane I mean, if anything that can damage the plane hits the cockpit the crew is fucked either way, but the plane can take quite a lot, even if some core systems are damaged it redundancies and fail-safes in place to RTB safely. I'm not familiar with the L159 but it seems a bit small to fit all that in.
Honestly I wonder if Helicopters might not be the best fit for the "light support role", especially given that a lot of modern choppers can go considerably faster than some of the proposed prop-planes.
One consideration for smaller nations like Canada is to combine light CAS within the training fleet. As we already run Harvard 2, lets up arm them and give the army some options. Same could be done with primary rotary such as an armed B407.
The instructor cadre normally has a core of second and third tour crews that would happily be dual rolled. Might give the reserves something to do as well with very little added cost.
As far as the knee jerk blocks against prop-driven combat planes, well no one seems to complain about the C-130 and that's got four props on it! I'm excited about an aircraft that is lighter and smaller than an A-10, with probably a lower heat signature.
We can consider these airplanes as the first layer of a multilevel forward air unit architecture. Strictly for tactical support use where a propeller driven aircraft is much more effective. Besides, once you learn to fly a cessna centurion, the transition to one of these airplanes is very very easy. A real advantage.
When i was watching this, the terrain was was kind of familiar especially at 4 minute mark, most of it was filmed in my home country Slovenia,
we still have those CAS aircrafts Pilatus PC-9M Hudournik. All that was filmed at our Poček army range
I feel like turbo props would be best for that becose if you fly lots or sorties your going to need an aircraft that is cheep to run and quick and easy to run, the turbo prop fills that role.
lipliam the aircraft channle agreed! Thanks for watching
Be better if the infantry where given the tool to fight their own battles. Relying on complete air superiority is a crutch that might cause high casualties for the infantry should they fight enemy with mobile AA or an actual air force. BTW the argument is we need light attack aircraft to win a unwinnable war in the middle east against enemy without modern AA or an actual airforce?
If the Army upgrades to MEADS then they will have mobile air defenses with relatively short setup times. Add more C-RAM to bases such as MANTIS and you get multiple layers of protection. For attack you need high capability aircraft to increase mission success and survival rates. There are a variety of potential aircraft well suited for that but these so called light attack aircraft are not among them. Currently the most capable overall attack aircraft in the world is the AH-64E Apache Guardian.
Many jet trainers also function as close air support: albatross, BAE hawk, alfa jet, or f 5 just to mention few - some still in service. Again as matsimus said its about money and functionality but
am all for turbo props.
how can anyone say turbo prop CAS is bad cause its too slow when high speed CAS is impossible?
You have to be slow in order to provide close air support
What is the point of having a high speed CAS if you have to slow down to engage the targets anyways?
World War my friend. The amount of planes loss by AAA by that time was incredible high. Pilots often prefer to dogfigth with other enemy pilots rather than support troops on the field knowing the risk of aaa cannon can rip off their plane and a Flak 88 can turn them into mist. Knowing this facts and also knowing that in Vietnam/Korea war this guns were still operational is basic logic they go with fast airplanes. Just because they want to save pilots life.
Since when does one *need* to go slow per se to do CAS. Look at maturation in technology, the F-35's EO-DAS for example can track missile launches well past 2nd stage burn out, SPG and artillery fire. In fact, in Iraq and Afghanistan ISTAR platforms such as the E-3 AWACS, RC-135W Rivet Joint and R1 Sentinel provided the majority of aerial intelligence for ground forces. Networking data nodes with strike platforms, or even combining them together like in the case of the F-35, gives rise to extremely high precision, surgical strikes with GPS+INS guided weapons even some with added tri mode seekers (SDB II). " _Low and slow_ " CAS perceptions are from a different era altogether. Even the overly hyped A-10 Thunderbolt II requires targeting data to be fed from the sensor pod carried underneath, which itself is a very intelligent piece of kit. And facets such as SAR, millimeter wave radar guided munitions are advancing CAS to a much higher level than before.
Bernardo Grando Quick response time maybe?
Its not impossible if dropping napalm canisters or cluster bombs.
+Suojeluninja those things that are illegal under international law... Yeah perfect for that
I think light turbo prop aircraft could be valuable for supporting ground troops from high altitudes where they would be less susceptable to light ground fire.With the right design they should have lengthy loighter times.
even against big nations, small support aircraft like the super tucano can force the enemy to decentralize its defenses and have units with s300 only to stop an attack of a 10 million dollar aircraft. This pushes the cost of defending to the enemy, and offer less defended areas for stealth and other high tech jets to operate
I f*cking love Turbo-Prop-Planes. Hell yeah
TheOmega277 me too! Thanks for watching!!
Matsimus Gaming Thanks for uploading, I really like your uploads!
TheOmega277 thanks!! 👍
Looks like a superb close support/ guerrilla fighter kind of plane. Bigger doesn't mean it's better
animenut69 Yes it does. Bigger means more wing mass. More wing mass means more lift. More lift means more ordnance carried. Bigger airframe means more fuel. More fuel means longer range, longer loitering times.
Use your head.
MAKE AUSTRALIA GREAT AGAIN Bigger means shitty manouvering.
Coco Well then it's gonna be vulnerable to small arms fire.
Biased Sherman I doubt they'll hit it
it's all about get more bang for your buck. period. That's why Super Tucano is a good aircraft; because it's dirt cheap and good enough for COIN/CAS against light targets.
Like your analysis and think it would be the sensible and reasonable thing to do for CAS in area were we already control the air... unfortunately, the fact it is reasonable, sensible and would help with all sorts of budget issues are probably also why narrow minded politicians that can't conceive of developing multiple tools for different jobs will allow it to happen.
Sean Wadey good points 👍
During discussions to discontinue A-10, Air Force proposed F-35 could perform CAS: Effects of the legalization of pot
The AF was incensed when the Army decided to build it's own rotor craft air wings for VN. Don't ever want to be under an AF supported ground mission- the AF is great at many things, but ground support with fast movers isn't on of them.
F-35 should stick to fighter duty
Us government, for the love of god, focus on good and cheap CAS.
I like the F-35 and all, but as CAS? Hell no
@@Kay_213_ I agree the f-35 is just too expensive I say propeller aircraft like what they describe in the video for light CAS and an A10 if you need something a bit bigger
The a 10 is useless in modern war. It was designed to survive 23mm aa cannons. Tech has changed since then. It could easily be destroyed against a developed army.
@@AltF4OuttaHere it is never deployed against a developed army, genius.
looks like a modern day Ju-87
It's heavily inspired by the P-51.
More accurately a modern day Hs-123 (arguably the best CAS aircraft of WWII...if the Il-2 wasn't).
U auta go go 2 specsavers you dick
I think it should not replace A-10 in USAF or Su-25/39 in VVS but compliment the existing unit. It help extend pool of pilot (they are basic trainer in the first place), reduce the fatigue of both pilot and existing airframe of dedicate attacker or even higher end fighter. They can be good to armed to indigenous allied force, cheap, easy to trained, handle, facilities and safer in term of technological compromise risk. It can escort the slow moving target and acting as aerial QRF for the helicopters or convoys efficiently.
Minh Tran Van very good points!!
A-10's are not going to be around forever.
Best comment ever.
The Navy brought a couple of OV 10s out of the scrapyard to support SEAL teams against isis . They were perfect!
rotor planes would be easier to maintain and would be quicker at taking off and need a smaller run way compared to jets
Greetings from Brazil!
Pedro Moraes greetings from Canada :-)
Portuguese from America, hello brother!
Congrats mate. Embraer is awasome aircraft manufacturer.
And US buying 300 of a29 aircraft.
hello.
This is so accurate. As a keen micro-armour gamer I quickly discovered sending a tornado out for close support made little sense, the alpha jets became the close support aircraft of choice. I would imagine a turbo prop would be even more effective.
Love to see more turboprops in this role. Makes perfect sense
One of my favorite subjects, CAS. The best aircraft choice would be in my opinion a mix of smaller AC130 type aircraft and an upgraded OV10 Bronco. The OV10 offers many things other single engine turbo prop aircraft do not, like more survivability due to having 2 engines, that also gives it higher payloads as well as STOL capabilities. Not to mention it can land on very poor airfields and evacuate a small number of troops. It has clamshell doors on the back of it's fuselage. The AC130 is a huge aircraft and expensive to maintain for CAS, the smaller C27J Spartan is a much better choice for limited budgets. Having a mix of both an upgraded OV10 and a AC27J could provide more time on target and much more firepower than the smaller less capable aircraft being chosen. One of the best of this kind of aircraft during the Vietnam war was the forgotten OV1A Mohawk. It has amazing abilities that were never taken advantage of due to the Air Forces insistence that no US Army aircraft be armed.
They were displayed at the Salon du Bourget, July 2017.
Awesome aircraft, I believe they're very well adapted to many, many situations. I hope a lot of countries will consider them as a viable option, regarding their own necessities and budgets...instead of buying expensive crap they don't need.
I was wondering if you were going to mention the Skyraider. Heavily armored, heavily armed, and long loiter times. The definition of light air support.
The Brazilian Super tucano is the best. Lot's of experience in the Amazon forest.
The turboprop CAS aircraft also has the added benefit of being somewhat of an in-between role of gunships and jet aircraft like the A-10 or the pentagon's idea of pressing the F35 into CAS. It can fly slower and observe more effectively at low altitude than a jet screaming in at 2-4x the speed while being able to fly faster and higher than a viper or apache.
I am glad the that the Philippine Air Force is considering the Super Tucano as a replacement for its OV-10 Borncos. I think they will do very well in the ground support role against local and foreign terrorists.
Watching the Tucano perform its capabilities on the Marawi campaign would have been quite the morale booster for the brave Philippine Army troops. I wish the PAF had them right now.
Dude your replying on your own post hahhahaha
Just get the Stuka back xD
TheGreenGuy lol with the Jericho sirens lol
By mid WW2, the Stuka was thought to be obsolete, it was just so slow compared to the then, modern fighters.
TheGreenGuy no need the dive bomber was a way to hit a target with some precision with dumb dumb bomb with guided bombs there more accurate safer for piloit. and better in all ways but the siren which was considered to be a weakness by the Germans and a lot of pilots removed them later in the war
Weak1ings dive bombers are useless with guided bombs
ik wath all of you mean... I just wanted that Sound back... Also, dumb bombs are cheaper than laser guided. (just saying) but yes it was because i am german so i love my stuff and also because of the Sound.
We HAD a propjob CAS, it was the T-28Trojan!!! We HAD a small light jet CAS, the A-37 Dragonfly!!! Both had a crew of 2!!!
Bring back the Skyraider.
Dimetropteryx they're museum pieces. Radial engines. Think.
Dimetropteryx I'd prefer to have the jug.
+MAKE AUSTRALIA GREAT AGAIN
Irrelevant.
+MAKE AUSTRALIA GREAT AGAIN radial engines are pretty powerful. The B17 needed 4, and 10 years later the skyraider could carry a similar payload on just one. They could probably be even more powerful today.
The A-1 skyraider was awesome. Shrugs off small arms awesome loiter time. Good speed for spotting ground targets. It was superb for the sandy missions during Vietnam in conjunction with super jollies
Reminds me of the P51s toward the end of ww2
the airframe was sound, design was proven , bring it back
a guy on the comment section of a super tucano video once said "the super tucano is the p51's hot daughter"
Time on station, weapons load, and accuracy. Turbo props and radials like the A1 were badass air support and attack aircraft. It's cheap now, and it's a no brainier!
WYVERN AND AD-2 SKYRAIDER WHEN
No tooling left. These planes are contenders because they're off the shelf models
A-1H model is the final model of the Skyraider.
Ever heard of Glacier Girl despite the damage that she went through they got back into flying condition so it IS possible to build a WWII aircraft with today's tech in fact people have made WORKING REPLICAS of WWII Aircraft so Those two CAN be put back in production.
Battleship009 I agree with today's technology and manufacturing capabilities I think some of these older planes would be bad ass .
Yep.
Ooo I have to absloutely agree with your awesome viewpoints of this cool video about Close Air Support (CAS) and basically it is great for small to medium range size targets 😁
That is why the Emberar A-39 Super Tucano is my all time favourite but yes I really going to miss the A-10 Thunderbolt a lot 😭😭
A viewer from Singapore here 😉👍
As an F-16 Crew Chief in a unit that primarily provides CAS abroad, I can confirm A LOT of us would LOVE to work on A-29's.
Really interesting video. This is related to a book I read called "utility of force" by Rupert Smith that covers the trends and issues with modern combat operations. You might find it interesting.
Kyle Broflovski I'll check it out. Thanks for watching!!
In sci-fi movies/video games: Flying car type VTOL aircraft replaces helicopters and other propeller aircrafts
In real life: Stuka type aircraft saw returning from WW2
We can make a turbofan version of Stuka, add two fuel efficient turbofan engines on the wings and stick 30mm GAU-8 in front in addition to 30mm autocannons, bombs, rockets and missiles.
I have been singing the praises of turboprop craft for Close Air Support for years now, though this video phrases it so much better then I could have, thans for that.
bring back the Skyraider... that should scare the pants off a bunch of baddie.
or the sea fury, although I am a sucker for big beefy radial engine fighters.
Can we expect you and Mr. white will put up the money to train radial engine mechanics and tool the dozens of radial engine shops that do not presently exist? If not, please refrain from your uninformed opinion slinging. There aren't enough radial shops to take care of the war bird restorers now- Rotec builds radials for civ use (much to small for this use) and do TBO's and repairs via an arrangement to ship the engines to Australia where they are made.
@@fredericrike5974 that's a real shame, as I really do love old warplanes. I must admit I made my previous comment in a light hearted manner, without knowing the state of radial engine manufacturing.
As cool as a modern Skyraider would be in CAS, tooling up the production line would be prohibitively expensive. With modern precision guided munitions, you don't really need a large aircraft in a low intensity battlefield anyway. Unless The United States becomes involved in a conflict where the enemy can put hundreds or thousands of troops in the field at one time, a light aircraft will be enough to do the job.
Blackburn firebrand
But we need something that can penetrate the top of tanks with a gun, the 30mm burrrrrrrttt can do that we need an a10 mk2 aka a20 warthog
G tubedude lol those days are over man
Matsimus Gaming wait the depleted uranium 30mm rounds can't pen the top of a tank now??? I mean they are unguided rounds and plenty of them so no hard or soft kill system could do anything against it.
Matsimus Gaming also what video is that with the tanks can you link it to me??
G tubedude 30mm rounds for tank hunting is inefficient, other wise every 30mm armed machine would use it for sutch role. Bombs and missiles are more cost effective than radioactive depleted uranium rounds. Plus, A-10's are expense to operate in low intensity treaters, and gun runs are unthinkable in high intensity conflicts
I said depleted uranium 30mm rounds though, those have higher penetration for the top of a tank
The airplane supporting the tanks (M84) is slovenian pilatus pc9m. Great video!
Turboprop is cheaper and can stay longer on the zone ... Just what you want on your shoulder.
TcharliX totally agree! Thanks for watching
This aircraft was designed here in Brasil. It's perfectly used for surveillance and patrol around the borders of the Amazon jungle to prevent smuggling and attacks from Colombian guerrillas. Their slow speed allows also to intercept small aircrafts that cross the borders, long time flying for it's low fuel consumpsion and CAS for the troops on the border.
Maloke Games and hunting the new Pablo Escobars!!
Exactly!! :)
LOL, after the death of THE Pablo Escobar many small ones appeared! The work for the Supertucanos will never end...
Now that we’re in the drone age, it gives this video another light as well.
We should re-produce and upgrade some P-47 Thunderbolts
Only if it's converted to powered by a large turboprop and power output has to be doubled because of how much bigger and heavier a P-47 with it's armor. Radial engines are also a maintenance nightmare.
I tend to agree with you on that mate, however I think that a better choice, obviously comparisons of the upgraded versions are essential, would be the British De Havilland Mosquito (yes its bigger) the Hawkers Typhoon or the Hawkers Tempest.
Bring back the P51 Mustang
@Brandon _37 I've seen one take off, myself. There's plenty of P-47s still flying today. They're obviously considered "warbirds" at this point, but I imagine they could still be somewhat useful against lightly armored targets.
@@edwardanderson4678 Those are all great planes. The Brits had some killer airpower. I like the Typhoon and the Hurricane. The Tempest was underrated as hell. But if we're escalating things to the Mosquito, I'll have to bring the American A-20 and A-26 out. The Lockheed P-38 also had very strong central firepower.
Throwback airplane is very effective during the battle in Marawi City, Philippines
we never used that. we only used OV-10s, SF-260s and FA-50PHs