SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Submitted via IRC for Fnord666
Second pilot ejected and survived, and the crash is under investigation.
On June 22, an A-29 Super Tucano participating in the US Air Force's Light Attack Experiment (OA-X) program crashed while flying over the Red Rio Bombing Range—part of the White Sands Missile Range in New Mexico. US Navy Lt. Christopher Carey Short, from Canandaigua, New York, died in the crash. Another pilot ejected and suffered only minor injuries.
The Super Tucano, a joint entry into the OA-X program by Brazil's Embraer and Sierra Nevada Corporation, is one of two aircraft designs being tested as part of the second phase of OA-X by pilots attached to the Air Force's 49th Wing at Holloman Air Force Base. The goal of the testing is to determine whether the aircraft matches the Air Force's needs for flying close air support and reconnaissance missions for combat and counterinsurgency in "uncontested environments" (that is, operational areas where the enemy lacks air defenses). Such a niche is currently occupied by the A-10 and other more advanced aircraft.
The flight over the Red Rio range was one of multiple scenario test missions, including close air support, combat search and rescue, and "armed overwatch" (combat reconnaissance). Both the A-29 and the other aircraft being flown in the OA-X tests—the Textron Beechcraft AT-6 Wolverine—are turboprop aircraft based on similar versions of Pratt & Whitney's PT6A-68 engine.
[...] The cause of the crash is still under investigation, and no preliminary findings have been released. In a statement, an Embraer spokesperson said, "The SNC/Embraer team is fully cooperating with the USAF in its investigation. Additional information will be released as it becomes available."
Related: Air Force Tests Two Turboprops as Potential A-10 "Replacements"
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Revek on Wednesday June 27 2018, @08:28PM (18 children)
Air force tests another aircraft that is inferior to the one they already operate.
Same shit different decade.
This page was generated by a Swarm of Roaming Elephants
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Wednesday June 27 2018, @08:51PM (7 children)
Air force will save money by buying an existing aircraft, which will perform the same function at much lower hourly cost and higher availability, displacing a terrific but aging aircraft.
We're a bit low on soviet tank blitzkriegs for the A-10 to stop with a gun that doesn't work on main battle tanks.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Revek on Wednesday June 27 2018, @09:03PM (5 children)
They won't save any money. Its not what they do. They will just spend that money elsewhere. Doesn't matter how old the A-10 is. They still have b-52 bombers that were built in the late fiftys and sixtys flying today. What they are using as a replacement will be unable to carry out the role as well as the A-10. Its a sure bet that if the A-10 can't damage a main battle tank that little popcorn fart won't be able to. It also won't take any kind of fire before it crop dusters to the ground. The air force should lose the CAS role if they lose the A-10. Let the army do it. They will do a better job anyway.
This page was generated by a Swarm of Roaming Elephants
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Wednesday June 27 2018, @09:24PM (4 children)
> will be unable to carry out the role as well as the A-10
[citation needed]
> that little popcorn fart
That little popcorn fart can run circles around anything that doesn't have a jet engine. And it's not slated to be used against people who have jet fighters.
The fact that the AF will waste elsewhere any savings they get from this, does not change the fact that the A-10 needs to be replaced, as maintenance costs skyrocket and availability plummets, by a modern plane, and getting a working airframe to do a job it has been proven capable of doing, is a lot better procurement policy than anything manned since the F-18.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Wednesday June 27 2018, @09:43PM (3 children)
Everything you are talking about is PARTS. Re-engines, new gear, new avionics.
You solve that by an fixing all the design and operational issues with the parts and maintenance issues with the A-10,
and run them all though the referb line again. Worst case you start the production line.
We'got more A10s sitting in bone yards than most countries have in their entire air fleet.
The big problem with A10s is they don't travel well. You can't slap 5 of them in a C5 Galaxy and fly them where you need them.
Most aren't equipped for air refuel, and its so slow the trans-ocean flight is grueling.
So you end up sending by surface ship.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by IndigoFreak on Thursday June 28 2018, @12:20AM (2 children)
I came in to ask this question. And it's slightly related to this particular thread.
Why do we spend so much money making a new type of aircraft? Did the plans for the A-10 burn up in some warehouse fire? Why when planes start to age and maintenance becomes too costly do we not just make a brand new one instead of going back through craptons of testing a new plane model that has never flown before? I have a hard time believing we can't just start throwing together brand new A-10's and have to absolutely design and build a new different one.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 28 2018, @02:08AM
military industrial complex pork barrel
(Score: 2) by frojack on Thursday June 28 2018, @05:18AM
The Air Force has been trying to kill the A-10 almost since the day it was released.
They hate it because its not fast and sexy and it makes their pilots fly low and slow instead of streaking across the sky above 40,000 feet. The only reason it is still in the inventory is because the Army and the Marines raise a shitstorm of protest (including 4 star generals calling the Air Force cowards to their face behind closed doors).
The last thing the Air Force wants is that production line restarted.
They want their shiny new F-35s But if they can't get them fast enough they will try to split Close Air Support off and maybe hand it to the Marines (but not the Army) at the end of this OA-X competition.
They will try to keep tank busting as their private bailiwick (from 30,000 feet).
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 28 2018, @01:45AM
It's great that recent fights have been with low-tech small nations. Don't get complacent.
Every now and then, a nation must face a horrible war or just surrender. Liberals probably want to surrender, especially if that means we get communism or more diversity. Ugh.
The USA has faced a few: 1812, WWI, WWII. (won't count the revolution or civil war; those are internal) No, Vietnam wasn't serious. Nothing in Iraq or Afghanistan has been serious. It's serious when you start measuring the dead as a percentage of total population.
THIS WILL HAPPEN AGAIN
It's as sure as the Sun rising. There will be war, and it will be horrible. We'd best prepare. Today this means roughly the cold war fears, with some extra cyber/drone stuff for variety. We may be fighting China or Russia. Given a bit of time (several decades?), we may find our best allies turning into enemies, so even France and the UK are possibilities.
That gun actually works pretty well on main battle tanks. Modern active defenses will easily stop the first shell... but there are thousands more behind that first shell. Reactive armor is single-use. Systems that lob projectiles back will usually suppress a response for a time (so they don't shoot their own debris) and they certainly can't hold enough to respond to the full ammo drum of an A-10. The armor itself doesn't last. It might stop the first exploding depleted-uranium shell, but the armor is weakened by that. Each shell weakens it more. There are a damn lot of shells in an A-10.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 27 2018, @08:59PM (8 children)
A-10 test flights have never crashed?
I'm not saying these are great tactical replacements for the A-10 (although cost/logistically I can understand the choice). Unless A-10's have never crashed and in particular never crashed in a test flight, it's kind of illogical to claim these are bad in comparison because of one crash.
(Score: 2) by Revek on Wednesday June 27 2018, @09:06PM (7 children)
The point is that they shouldn't be shopping around for a inferior replacement. That fluffy little plane will just get pilots and ground personnel killed. They are trying to cheap out by not even to bother to build a competent replacement.
This page was generated by a Swarm of Roaming Elephants
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 27 2018, @09:33PM (6 children)
(Score: 4, Informative) by frojack on Wednesday June 27 2018, @10:24PM (5 children)
WW II ended in 1945. The Super Tucano was Introduction in 2003. You seem to have been asleep for 55 years.
Super Tucano Performance
Maximum speed: 590 km/h (319 knots, 367 mph)
Cruise speed: 520 km/h (281 knots, 323 mph)
Stall speed: 148 km/h (80 knots, 92 mph)
Combat radius: 550 km (300 nmi, 342 mi) (hi-lo-hi profile, 1,500 kg (3,300 lb) of external stores)[206]
Empty weight: 3,200 kg (7,055 lb)
Max. takeoff weight: 5,400 kg (11,905 lb) Payload fuel and pilot 6000 pounds.
A-10 Thunderbold Performance
Maximum speed: 381 knots (439 mph, 706 km/h) a t sea level, clean[191]
Cruise speed: 300 knots (340 mph, 560 km/h)
Stall speed: 120 knots (138 mph, 220 km/h) [193]
Combat radius: ** CAS mission: 250 nmi (288 mi, 460 km) at 1.88 hour loiter at 5,000 ft (1,500 m), 10 min combat
Empty weight: 24,959 lb (11,321 kg)
CAS mission: 47,094 lb (21,361 kg) Payload Fuel Pilots 22000 pounts
For 1/10th the price you get 1/3 the payload delivered at same cruise speed, at longer distances.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 28 2018, @02:28AM
zerg rush kekekekekekekeke
(Score: 2) by tibman on Thursday June 28 2018, @03:27AM (3 children)
Sorry, but that sounds like bean counting. The A-10 has two engines and is designed to take ground fire. The Super Tucano isn't designed to take any fire. The ST sounds like a really crap plane for ground support duty.
Look at some of the A-10 stuff. Here, it takes a SAM to the wing and lands safely: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o7JM82fa5ZY [youtube.com]
"that particular day, Johnson can also thank his life to the warthog's sturdy turbofan jets. When his wing is hit 664's right engine swallowed an incredible amount of shrapnel and debris but by design it was able to spit the wreckage out, power back up, and to bring him home."
Here is an A-10 that takes anti-aircraft fire and lands safetly: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1BecNTYPYbU [youtube.com]
"The right engine had 45 holes in the shroud, the left engine had about 15. They both kept running. The aircraft was so badly damaged i just didn't see how it made it."
This vid is just great. The guy who helped design the A-10 talks about the design concepts. Really shows how garbage these other plans are for this role: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rEdy84YGf1k [youtube.com]
SN won't survive on lurkers alone. Write comments.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by janrinok on Thursday June 28 2018, @04:23AM (2 children)
The A-10 was designed for operation against massed tanks of the former Soviet Union, which were invariably supported by air defence missiles and guns. The A-10 was designed to be able to operate in that environment.
The 'replacement' is designed to operate where there is no significant enemy air defences. Why over engineer an aircraft - and drive up costs - to meet a requirement that the purchaser has not asked for? It is NOT an A-10 replacement. The only sources for that claim are journalists who don't know any better and people arguing here who apparently know even less.
The Super Tucano is a different beast being modified to operate in a different environment to the aircraft that many are comparing it with. It will sell better overseas, thereby recouping some of the USA's development costs, particularly to those nations who have no need for a depleted uranium round that can defeat active armour.
(Score: 2) by tibman on Thursday June 28 2018, @04:47PM (1 child)
"designed for operation against massed tanks of the former Soviet Union"
Go watch the 3rd vid i linked. That's not what it was designed for. The guy said they needed a weapon that could strike a target within 20 meters of friendly troops. That severely limited what could be used.
Military equipment is exactly the stuff you want over engineered. The purchaser doesn't even want the A-10 to exist. They don't want to do any CAS. Dropping 500lb bombs from above cloud cover is NOT CAS. Forcing "the purchaser" to do their job is the correct thing to do. Either that or they should give fixed wing CAS to the army. They'll never do that because they know that once the US Army has planes then the AirForce will only ever be flying cargo around and chasing radar ghosts.
SN won't survive on lurkers alone. Write comments.
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Thursday June 28 2018, @06:37PM
And where would anyone expect this target to be - hundreds of miles away from the site of the battle? Have you seen the battlefield that we expected to fight on? Have you seen the Fulda Gap, the German Plains, the steep sided valleys in Southern Europe? The Warsaw Pact vastly outnumbered the NATO forces and the best that we could hope for was to slow down the enemy advance to give diplomacy - political or nuclear - a time to work. The A-10 had a valuable role to play in that defence. It was able to operate close to our own ground forces and effectively counter one the advantages that the Warsaw Pact had - huge numbers of armoured vehicles. Without those vehicles the equally overwhelming number of ground troops would still be a problem but would become more manageable and vulnerable to other weapons. But the armoured vehicles came with their own tracked radars, missiles and gun defences. That was the environment that the A-10 had to survive in.
The A-10 might have seen service in the Middle East and elsewhere but it was a key element of the NATO defence of Europe.
The Super Tucano is not intended to fulfill that role. I understand that you might feel that the real reason is inter-service rivalry - it is the same in almost all forces. But I fear that you do your own military staff a great disservice by accusing them of procuring an aircraft that the fully hope will fail. The requirements for the aircraft are clearly specified in TFS:
Now, if your army are going to be fighting often in that sort of environment then this aircraft might be good enough to do the job. If it is a far more hostile environment than another aircraft is needed. But by saving some money buying a much cheaper but faster aircraft (if that option is feasible) to fulfill some options you will have additional funds to buy another aircraft that will meet th e requirements of the more hostile environment too. If you go for the more expensive version for everything you will be spending more than you have to for fewer total airframes. Several European air forces already do this. It isn't a new idea, and it works. However, you do not invest all of your money in one type of aircraft. It is possible to get much more value for money by looking at alternative solutions.
The idea of this program is to identify if the ST can fulfill that role - it is not a foregone conclusion.
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Wednesday June 27 2018, @09:59PM
Of course! How else can you justify nice large checks to defense contractors and their shareholders for R&D with no penalties for fouling up?
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.