They may not have built-in guns but I think they have attachable gun options -
Posted on 01/07/2018 9:31:23 PM PST by Kartographer
My bad
The AT6 is not yet fully operational
The A29 is
You might wish to be a bit more clear when you say that the AT-6 does not have a US airworthiness certificate because the FAA cannot approve an armed aircraft, and the US military has not purchased any, so the AT-6 is not certificated by the US government. Chicken and egg.
I’m not following your train of thought. The AT-6 does not have an airworthiness certificate because the process is expensive and a buyer (or “launch customer”) is yet to be found to absorb those costs since the USAF—so far—will not.
Armed aircraft can only be certified by a military authority. The FAA cannot certify the AT-6 like they did the T-6.
The USAF has not purchased AT-6s in any numbers, so they have not certificated it, either.
The fact that it is uncertificated in the US is a factor in evaluations, but is not driven by the lack of ability to be approved, which is how I read your comments. Please correct me if this impression is incorrect.
Resurrect the SkyRaider. You need a weapons platform that can loiter.
When the bids for the two aircraft were submitted to the USAF in 2010 for the LAS program they were required to present a cost/schedule plan for obtaining a US military airworthiness certification (the A-29 already had a non-US certification). Ultimately the A-29 won because, according to the USAF, there was significant technical risk to the AT-6’s certification plan. Incidentally, this appears to be the same reason the Philippine Gov’t selected the A-29 over the AT-6. The USAF hasn’t procured any AT-6 aircraft. Does this help?
They may not have built-in guns but I think they have attachable gun options -
Fair enough. I read more into your comment than warranted.
A relatively small caliber gatling gun like the 30mm cannon on the A10 simply is not big enough to deal with the better armor protection of current production tanks.
The USAF’s primary anti tank weapon has been air to ground missiles for about 40 years now and, in fact, was the primary anti tank weapon of the A10. The gun was considered a secondary weapon to use once they ran out of missiles...which was expected to happen often if the we were trying to stop the Soviets from coming through the Fulda gap.
These are COIN aircraft. Stupid article for calling them A-10 replacements.
A brand-spankin' new A-10, thank you!
Two engines, for one thing. Can either one of these planes handle a 30mm cannon?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.