Might have been. It wasn't their flying, it was the attitude of some around the spaces.
-
Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?
Go here:
Edit Account Details and Profile
Return of Turboprops to CAS role?
- Thread starter aircav06
- Start date
Might have been. It wasn't their flying, it was the attitude of some around the spaces.
The way I read the Navy Times article is that these guys are gonna be direct CAS support with the weapons they have on board. The FAC part would still, in my mind, be covered by guys higher up, with a broader field of view/SA. If that is the case, I don't see how the specific flying would be much different than in BlackPony's era, just get the 5 line, etc, and go at it, which I would think could be taught to most any bubba with wings.
Of course, this is from an HS guy's point of view, so I may be totally missing something.
How about just bringing this gorgeous old dump truck back??
Damn...that's a great pic!! Got ~1100 hours in the Spad...never, ever, anywhere did I see one that clean!!
VA-176 must have been washin' and waxin' them back then!!
Gotta be a very early model, or 20 MM cannons removed...and looks like the guy's about to make a "wheels" landing...he'll bounce down the runway!!
Aw, Shit! Just checked the VA-176 website...great pictures of Charlie Knochel (KIA on our cruise), and Pete Russell (KIA 1969 in a OV-10).
Shit again...just read of Pete's brother Ken (CAPT USN RET)...died the end of May this year of Parkinson's...in a nursing home no more than five miles from my old family homestead...had a long talk with Ken several years back...probably at the VA-35 Disestablishment at Oceana in early 1995. A glum day...
Even if this program is a sucess and it is expanded to include more aircraft and personnel I would not be so certain that a RAG would be stood up. Why invest in the infrastructure of a RAG to bring personnel up to speed when you already have a large pool of experienced people to pull from and train in-house? Given enough money and time you certainly could train anyone for the mission, NASA proved that with it's Mecury monkeys, but the money and manpower could be better invested elsewhere. That is the way it has been done with 'special' squadrons for a while, why should this be different?
Another point, I would not rely too much on open source for what these guys will actually be doing. The force apparently has not even been deployed yet and the tactics and their employment will almost certainly evolve from the time they do.
So let me get this straight, you are comparing training certain folks for the mission to chimps and the astronaut program? Yeah, that's a good comparison. Fucking retarded but then again, I'm one of those guys who actually fly's the plane, a stick monkey if you will.
Really, that sensitive? Relax, according to many pilots I am nothing more than self-loading baggage, I am certain you can take a monkey joke or two.
I thought there was no crying in Naval Aviation, or is that baseball?
It's not that, I just don't like you
When someone you don't like spouts off his trap, you say something.
AF requests 100 light-attack aircraft:
http://www.airforcetimes.com/news/2009/08/airforce_light_airplane_080309w/
http://www.airforcetimes.com/news/2009/08/airforce_light_airplane_080309w/
Seems like all they need to do is stick a laser-designator on this bad boy and it meets all the requirements.
How much you want to bet it ain't an unsexy turbo prop? They will put themselves in a pointy nose jet that costs more, goes faster, climbs higher and faster, and burns more gas then the original concept.
Reading the request for information, looks like they are looking for an off the shelf solution, ala PC-9/Super Tucano. It's a damn shame, as the A-10B above or this bad bod would be sweet:
Damn shame that spinning up the production line would probably cost more than the actual planes.
Damn shame that spinning up the production line would probably cost more than the actual planes.
Turbojets ain't exactly thrifty, either.
MasterBates
Well-Known Member
I wonder how an A-4 with modern FADEC turbofans would do on gas...
Thrifty, by most of our standards, no. But for this mission, it would be less expensive then any OTS turbofan aircraft I can think of. And I disagree that the requirements listed in the article lead one to believe that they prefer a turboprop. The requirements are basic mins. If the AF can go faster then 200mph and burn more gas while still achieving a 1000 mile range (or BS their way around it) then they will do it just to get a sexy jet on the flight line. Only real requirement that is somewhat limiting is the 6000 ft. take off. That can be done with a jet meeting the other requirements given enough power and standard day atmospherics. A typical day in Afghanistan, Iraq or most any of the other likely areas of employment is something entirely different.