Jump to content

  • Log in with Twitter Log in with Windows Live Log In with Steam Log In with Google      Sign In   
  • Create Account

Photo
- - - - -

WW II Aircraft in Combat Today

counterinsurgency close air support

  • Please log in to reply
14 replies to this topic

#11 GatorDude

GatorDude

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 20 posts
  • Joined 3 Years, 1 Month and 2 Days
  • 4 topics
  • LocationSoutheastern US

Posted 11 June 2014 - 03:01 AM

I guess fun and looks cool can't really be part of the selection criteria. ;)


---------------------------------

Motto:  Vanquish fear & panic

Blog:  http://www.gungator.blogspot.com/

Writings:  http://contributor.y...39/l_spain.html


#12 curmudgeon

curmudgeon

    Regular Member

  • Forum Guru
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,044 posts
  • Joined 14 Years, 5 Months and 8 Days
  • 25 topics

Posted 15 June 2014 - 12:33 AM

I guess fun and looks cool can't really be part of the selection criteria. ;)

Guess not ... and modern protective armour (titanium, plastics) is not as heavy as WW II steel, and protective design has advanced heaps. Just look at the visibility available from either of the two contenders ...



#13 GregP

GregP

    Forum Guru

  • Forum Guru
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,221 posts
  • Joined 13 Years, 9 Months and 25 Days
  • 222 topics

Posted 20 June 2014 - 02:44 AM

I think the F-14 is sort of a poor example. When it was working it was as good as almost anything ... but it had worn out to the point where it was taking about 120 man-hours of labor for each flight hour. It was retired more for cost considerations than any lack of effectiveness.

 

If they made an "updated" version of it, it would likely STILL be VERY competitive with the exception of stealth characteristics.

 

I like the Embraer ALX or "Super Tucano" as a counter-insurgency aircraft, but there are others every bit as good and maybe slightly better ... I'm not really "up" on COIN aircraft available today off-the-shelf.



#14 GatorDude

GatorDude

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 20 posts
  • Joined 3 Years, 1 Month and 2 Days
  • 4 topics
  • LocationSoutheastern US

Posted 20 June 2014 - 05:19 AM

Wow GregP! . . . . 120 hours per man hour of flight sounds pretty costly.

 

Curmudgeon.... I'll bet visibility would be the key.  If you are flying around trying to shoot people on the ground, you've got to see them well.  That might be so easy with an old Corsair.


---------------------------------

Motto:  Vanquish fear & panic

Blog:  http://www.gungator.blogspot.com/

Writings:  http://contributor.y...39/l_spain.html


#15 GregP

GregP

    Forum Guru

  • Forum Guru
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,221 posts
  • Joined 13 Years, 9 Months and 25 Days
  • 222 topics

Posted 27 June 2014 - 07:50 AM

Yeah, the F/A-18 had lower performance but was in the 18 - 20 man-hours per flight hour category.

 

Easy to see why the F-14 was retired when you look at the maintenance costs! I hate that we lost the great radar, though ... and the Phoenix missile that was really developed for the fighter version of the SR-71 that was never bought (YF-12A that might have been the F-12).

 

The old F-14 videos can show you some very good airframe performance ... as long as everything was working ...

 

 

Good choice, Kutscha.

 

I love the OV-10 Bronco! Especially with more powerful engines and commensurate props ... and some good avionics. Altogether a really neat aircraft taht never really got it's due measure of glory that it surely won.






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users