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: 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.