Help support TMP

"USAF Buying Prop Driven Planes for Close Air Support" Topic

20 Posts

All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.

For more information, see the TMP FAQ.

Back to the Modern Discussion (1946 to 2007) Message Board

Back to the Modern Aviation Discussion (1946-2007) Message Board

1,514 hits since 21 Jun 2013
©1994-2018 Bill Armintrout
Comments or corrections?

Crankee Doodle Inactive Member21 Jun 2013 6:52 p.m. PST

Didn't see a post here about it, so I though I'd share.


Onomarchos Supporting Member of TMP21 Jun 2013 6:58 p.m. PST

They are not for the USAF … this is a FMS give away to the Afghan AF. And although they are prop driven, the engines are turbines (jet engines).


marcus arilius21 Jun 2013 7:08 p.m. PST

should have kept the Douglas A-1 Skyraider . it can take a licking and keep on flying.

Personal logo Striker Supporting Member of TMP21 Jun 2013 7:09 p.m. PST

For a minute I thought it was April 1 with that post title.

Crankee Doodle Inactive Member21 Jun 2013 7:25 p.m. PST

My apologies then. All I saw was the press release. Move along, nothing to see here.

CorpCommander21 Jun 2013 7:27 p.m. PST

Super Tucanos are everywhere. They are a very useful aircraft when you don'thave a lot of opposition to worry about. It's like having a light tank when there aren't any tanks on the other side or decent anti-tank weapons.

Chortle Fezian Inactive Member22 Jun 2013 3:00 a.m. PST

Who flies them? Contractors of local guys?

Mako1122 Jun 2013 6:13 a.m. PST

Yes, those are far too practical for our Air Force.

We must have very expensive $100 USD+ mil a copy jets for the enemy to shoot down, with simple, low-cost MANPADS.

Personal logo Murphy Sponsoring Member of TMP22 Jun 2013 6:32 a.m. PST

Considering the quality of maintenance that the afghans are known for I wonder how long before all of these are deadlined and become hangar queens…??

charles popp22 Jun 2013 7:28 a.m. PST

Yeah,I still think the USAF should have kept a squadron or two of A-1. Very useful aircraft. Add to the fact that6 it is Naval capable means you have a true multi use platform.
In my USA/CSA alt history in 2000 the USA has them to use in the GS role near the river areas just because they are tough rugged and just plain cool

Ed Mohrmann Supporting Member of TMP22 Jun 2013 7:45 a.m. PST

Goes back to T-28's and A-26's in Africa (mid/late 60's)
and Vietnam.

Loiter time, ordnance load and easier maintenance
than the F4 or other pure jets. Plus, easier to learn
to fly.

And the SPAD should have been kept in the inventory, except
that the drones can fill that role, even at increased $$$.

Legion 422 Jun 2013 7:50 a.m. PST

Yes, the Skyraider(SPAD) was successfully use by the USA in Indo-China … Something like it could work for the AAF … But as noted, drones can do the job for the US … as well as A-10s … if the USAF does not try to get rid of them again …

Lion in the Stars22 Jun 2013 9:33 a.m. PST

Anyone who says that "we should have kept the Spads around" has never tried to maintain the big radials. It's not leaking oil? engine's deadlined, out of oil.

It blows a monster smoke cloud on startup, big enough to draw the crash/fire/rescue guys? No, that's normal.

Gotta replace the bottom cylinders about every 100 hours under heavy load, they overheat.

I could keep going about how much fun Radials are.

Now, one idea I had was to resurrect the XF5U flying flapjack, but use the T56 engines from a C130. very short takeoff roll, and capable of hauling a decent amount of fuel and ammo in that big wing.

The other idea I had was to modify some A10s with the ultra-high bypass turbofans. decreases noise and thermal signature.

Ed Mohrmann Supporting Member of TMP22 Jun 2013 4:23 p.m. PST

Lion, I take it you worked on SPADS. So did my brother,
a maintenance supervisor at the SPAD's end-of-service

He liked 'em, but that may have been nostalgia for a
soon-to-be-gone favorite.

Lion in the Stars22 Jun 2013 5:55 p.m. PST

@Ed: No, I worked on other aircraft, and with some guys that worked on radial-engined cropdusters. They were always changing the bottom cylinders because the pilots were running too lean (and hot).

I can understand that the pilots loved them, and they're easy to patch up, but radials are horrible for maintenance.

Legion 423 Jun 2013 7:33 a.m. PST

Maintenance is always "a Mutha' " ! evil grin I was a both a Bn and Bde BMO … noose

GROSSMAN Supporting Member of TMP23 Jun 2013 1:19 p.m. PST

More useless pork for some senators district. I would like to meet the salesman that pulled this one off.

Deadone Inactive Member23 Jun 2013 5:18 p.m. PST

EMB-314 Super Tucano is selling like proverbial hot cakes in Latin America and Africa and are making inroads in Asia as an OV-10 Bronco replacement.

With regards to MANPADS, they're not as common now as they were in 1970s-1980s when they were supplied en masse to many third world insurgents by the super powers.

Most of these stocks have been used up or are time expired.

Even in Syria, most aircraft have been shot down by manually guided AAA (mainly HMGs) as Syrians lack PGM capabilities.

MANPADS used have been mainly older ge SA-7.

Hence an EMB-314 turboprop is a good investment. Bare in mind EMB-314 have Precision Guided Munition capability (bomb from higher altitudes) and relatively advanced self defence avionics too (flare/chaff, Radar Warning Receiver, missile approach warning receiver systems).

In fact they have a better weapons and electronics fit than most jet aircraft used in second-third world.

Dee Jay Inactive Member28 Jun 2013 10:52 a.m. PST

A bit of an update on this

A US watchdog has advised the Pentagon to ground plans to spend $780 USDm (513m) on 48 aircraft for the Afghan military, as their pilots lack expertise.

From the BBC link

(I make fun of others) Inactive Member28 Jun 2013 1:39 p.m. PST

Super Tucanos

Sounds like an Italian superhero.

Sorry - only verified members can post on the forums.