Skip to comments.
AT-6 Meets the Need for an Affordable Light Attack Aircraft
Lexington Institute ^
| April 27, 2011
Posted on 04/28/2011 9:04:38 PM PDT by sukhoi-30mki
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-26 next last
Artwork: Hawker Beechcraft
To: sukhoi-30mki
Maybe we’ve still got an AU-1 or two that we could dust off.
2
posted on
04/28/2011 9:22:30 PM PDT
by
Trod Upon
(Obama: Making the Carter malaise look good. Misery Index in 3...2...1)
To: sukhoi-30mki
I still think they should have gone with a modernized OV-10 Bronco.
Better visibility for the Forward Air Control / Liaison role.
3
posted on
04/28/2011 9:24:30 PM PDT
by
sinanju
To: sukhoi-30mki
If they want a prop plane, why not just bring back the Navy’s Skyraider, AD-1. This was truly a great attack aircraft. Put a turboprop in it.
4
posted on
04/28/2011 9:35:23 PM PDT
by
sasportas
To: sinanju
“The choice of the AT-6 would realize life-cycle cost savings because of the ability to leverage the existing supply chain in place to support the T-6.”
5
posted on
04/28/2011 9:45:13 PM PDT
by
jdege
To: sukhoi-30mki
While I can fully understand the need for something that can fly low-and-slow to bring the rain to the terrorists, a slow aircraft is even easier to hit with machinegun fire than a fast one. Something that small can only carry so much armor before it becomes too heavy to fly, and it has to be able to get out of range quickly when it needs to.
To be honest, re-creating one of the old WWII-era fighters might have been a better choice. Some of those had ridiculously low stall speeds, and much beefier airframes. They also carried engines that could hit nearly 1000hp under emergency power. Something like the old P-40 or P-47, with modern avionics, would fit the bill nicely (and ya gotta love the sound those old fighter engines made).
6
posted on
04/28/2011 9:45:44 PM PDT
by
Little Pig
(Vi Veri Veniversum Vivus Vici.)
To: Trod Upon
We can wait for this thing to be developed into a COIN aircraft or we could have the Super Tucano last year, except the congressmen from Kansas (Beechcraft) blocked their use.
Beech better not screw this up.
7
posted on
04/28/2011 9:46:11 PM PDT
by
USNBandit
(sarcasm engaged at all times)
To: sukhoi-30mki
oh hell yeah, that's what my Dad learned to fly in.
8
posted on
04/28/2011 9:47:58 PM PDT
by
ccmay
(Too much Law; not enough Order.)
To: sasportas
Navys Skyraider, AD-1
If you can get it in the doors or hang it on the wing, it will get it off the ground.
9
posted on
04/28/2011 9:48:11 PM PDT
by
cpdiii
(Deckhand, Roughneck, Geologist, Pilot, Pharmacist, Iconoclast: THE CONSTITUTION IS WORTH DYING FOR.)
To: Little Pig
Correction: not nearly 1000hp, nearly 3000hp (though those had some teething problems).
10
posted on
04/28/2011 9:48:20 PM PDT
by
Little Pig
(Vi Veri Veniversum Vivus Vici.)
To: sukhoi-30mki
Good night, keep building A -10's perfect aircraft for this.
A Beech Craft with a PT-6 is an awesome aircraft.........god love my corporate days in a King Air 200 but this is not what we need militarily.
11
posted on
04/28/2011 9:50:20 PM PDT
by
Kakaze
(Exterminate Islamofacism and apologize for nothing....except not doing it sooner!)
To: Little Pig
I’d say do an updated p-51.
12
posted on
04/28/2011 10:00:22 PM PDT
by
Secret Agent Man
(I'd like to tell you, but then I'd have to kill you.)
To: Kakaze
A-10s are awesome. Troops also love em.
13
posted on
04/28/2011 10:01:25 PM PDT
by
Secret Agent Man
(I'd like to tell you, but then I'd have to kill you.)
To: sukhoi-30mki
Looks like they picked perfect concept for the role.
14
posted on
04/28/2011 10:07:29 PM PDT
by
Mariner
(USS Tarawa, VQ3, USS Benjamin Stoddert, NAVCAMS WestPac, 7th Fleet, Navcommsta Puget Sound)
To: sukhoi-30mki
Seems to me that a pusher would be better in a ground attack role. The engine in the rear would aid maneuverability. All the heat would be in the rear thereby reducing MANPAD's ability to engage from head on. Swept blades would allow sharp takeoffs without worrying about blade tips touching the ground, Guns could be clustered in the nose for concentrated fire similar to that of the P-38 lightning.
15
posted on
04/28/2011 10:12:43 PM PDT
by
fso301
To: Secret Agent Man
P 47 would be better, with the radial engine for the pilot to hide behind. p-51 was better at speed and at altitude, but with an inline engine, a water filled radiator and liquid cooling, had much greater vulnerability.
“The P-47 was a 20mm sponge. It could take numerous cannon hits. I can attest to that.” Erich Hartmann, Luftwaffe
16
posted on
04/28/2011 11:33:07 PM PDT
by
donmeaker
("To every simple question, there is a neat, simple answer, that is dead wrong." Mark Twain)
To: sukhoi-30mki
A Stearman has 2 wings;
if one gets shot off,
you got one left.
To: All
18
posted on
04/29/2011 1:06:25 AM PDT
by
MCF
To: sukhoi-30mki
Still never had confidence in the designation AT-6 because it sounds like 86 which isn't a good thing.
To: donmeaker
The P-47 was a 20mm sponge. It could take numerous cannon hits. I can attest to that. Erich Hartmann, Luftwaffe Are you sure you have your plane a pilot correct? Erich Hartmann spent most of his time shooting down Russian planes. He said the Il-2 was heavily armoured and difficult to shoot down but I don't remember him engaging P-47's although he did engage a few P-51's.
20
posted on
04/29/2011 6:53:02 AM PDT
by
fso301
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-26 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson