It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Air Force considers LAA experiment

page: 2
4
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 19 2017 @ 04:28 PM
link   
I suspect the reason for the b2's was more of a show of force to other nations, a little sabre rattling to remind red force that the b2 is very much still a credible platform able to mount deep precision surgical strikes

as for the CAS role I am still thinking they need to bring back the broncos another warhorse that is able to perform the milk runs as needed maybe with F15s as a sister in the role for a faster strike when needed ...

dont re-invent the wheel




posted on Jan, 19 2017 @ 07:22 PM
link   
a reply to: urbanfox

The problem with bringing back the Bronco is that there's no one left that can build them, and the plans were probably destroyed years ago. They were built by North American, who later merged with Rockwell, who merged with Boeing.



posted on Jan, 20 2017 @ 04:00 AM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: urbanfox

The problem with bringing back the Bronco is that there's no one left that can build them, and the plans were probably destroyed years ago. They were built by North American, who later merged with Rockwell, who merged with Boeing.


You are exactly right. The OV-10 was a 1965 production. Everyone who designed or built them over a half century ago has either died, retired, or moved on to be a Walmart greeter. It was a fine aircraft, but I didn't care much for the Garrett engines.



posted on Jan, 20 2017 @ 09:08 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58
Hang on, wasn't this very idea floated around recently? I'm sure there was mention of Boeing looking at reinstating production for this very need within the last few years. And were there not some rebuilt very recently for Spec Ops support? Therefore I would assume that drawings and possibly tooling are still available. Actually it wouldn't surprise me that with its design you dont need much special tooling other than the specific wing and fuse jigs, and even if they are gone rebuilding those jigs wouldn't be beyond capability or cost effectiveness if you are planning on building at least a couple of hundred plus a few more for interested third parties. Its not like its an F-22 or F-14.

LEE.



posted on Jan, 20 2017 @ 09:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: cavtrooper7
a reply to: Zaphod58

I STILL think the USAF should wash it's hands of those missions and leave them to the Army.
They should regroup for space.
REBUDGETING all of course.


I believe the Navy gets space once we get to Large spaceships. Didn't that British hacker say he seen spaceships that were involved with the navy. Navy also has Naval Space Command



With missles, Helis, drones, and in the future Drone Swarms I do not think what they are looking for is a priority.



posted on Jan, 20 2017 @ 09:20 PM
link   
a reply to: thebozeian

They have some that were still flying, or were in good enough condition to restore to flying condition.



posted on Jan, 20 2017 @ 09:21 PM
link   
a reply to: jellyrev

The Air Force has a Space Command too. They both monitor foreign space activities, as well as running satellites for the military. The AF has SBIRS and several recon types, while the Navy has satellites geared towards the naval mission. Both have communications satellites.



posted on Jan, 20 2017 @ 09:24 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

I'll have to look into it, thanks for the heads up.



posted on Jan, 20 2017 @ 09:25 PM
link   
a reply to: jellyrev

I mostly speak of orbital weaponry since it's just the beginning.
I STILL say the already HAVE an active TAV capable fighter they can build if money is injected to it.
I think they are waiting for DEWS weaponry to mature for that.
That ..ROCKWELL thing looked cool but no bombs.
AND there WERE treaties...
edit on 20-1-2017 by cavtrooper7 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 20 2017 @ 09:26 PM
link   
a reply to: jellyrev

They're based at Peterson AFB in Colorado. They ran Space Fence until it shut down, and once the new one is up and running they'll handle it too.

www.afspc.af.mil...



posted on Jan, 20 2017 @ 10:22 PM
link   
a reply to: F4guy

Hey if we're bringing back old designs, why not the P-51 in that case? It's quite a bit faster than the Bronco and can lay down some serious lead.



posted on Jan, 20 2017 @ 10:41 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

They were live testing some new equipment features, it appears.



posted on Jan, 20 2017 @ 10:45 PM
link   
a reply to: aholic

They could have done the same test flying to Guam or Europe. There was no threat anywhere near Libya. They would have gotten the same results flying them just about anywhere else.



posted on Jan, 20 2017 @ 10:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: aholic
a reply to: F4guy

Hey if we're bringing back old designs, why not the P-51 in that case? It's quite a bit faster than the Bronco and can lay down some serious lead.


Honestly the ww2 era fighters didn't really hold much ground attack potential compared to modern aircraft. P-51s could carry either 2 1000lb bombs or 10 or so rockets. Even the P-47s only carried 3 1000lb bombs and 12 rockets at the most.

The A-1 could carry 8000lbs of ordinance and the A-10 can carry about 16000lbs.

I would guess a modern attack aircraft would be somewhere between the A-10 and A-1 ordinance wise.



posted on Jan, 21 2017 @ 05:53 AM
link   

originally posted by: aholic
a reply to: F4guy

Hey if we're bringing back old designs, why not the P-51 in that case? It's quite a bit faster than the Bronco and can lay down some serious lead.


Piper Aircraft tried that in the 70s with a turboprop version of the P-51 called the PA-48 Enforcer. When no one bought any, the program was killed off.



posted on Jan, 21 2017 @ 06:33 AM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
And this is why this is a good idea.

B-2s attack Isis camp in Libya

There is no reason for B-2s to fly from Whiteman to attack camps where there is zero credible surface to air threat. We're using sledgehammers to crack walnuts and it needs to stop.


An the cost of that operation was absolutely stupid ! They carried GBU-38, the 500 pound JDAMS an reports are they dropped close to 100 munitions for the 80 kills. At $130,000 per flight hour. That comes out to roughly $4.4 million a piece or $8.8 million for both aircraft.. That is not counting the 15 or so aircraft used for the refueling or the price of the GU-38s ... Just another waste of resources unless all they wanted to do was prove their capabilities which has already been proven.. Typical airfarce waste and mission planning... No reason to do otherwise for if they don't spend their allocated funds they lose it for the next year.... at least that is the way it used to be.. Well we now have a ball park figure/price tag for each supposedly ISIS killed. With these kind of figures I should start my own ISIS killer elite and use the old method of counting ears..... paid upon presentation.

This says 80 ISIS were killed www.rt.com...



posted on Jan, 21 2017 @ 02:35 PM
link   
I think that bringing back the OV-10 Bronco is not a bad idea. I'm not talking about refurbishing old airframes, I'm talking a total redesign. With the advances in materials and technology that have been made since the original construction, we should get one hell of an aircraft. Use the same engines as the upgraded E-2 with the six blade scimitar propeller.

Of course you are talking to a guy who would like to see a new A-4 Skyhawk that uses the same engine as the F/A-18.



posted on Jan, 21 2017 @ 03:09 PM
link   
a reply to: JIMC5499

Might be a good idea but nobody in the DoD will want to pay for the engineering costs of doing that when there are readily available, and much cheaper, off the shelf jets out there.
edit on 21-1-2017 by justwanttofly because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 21 2017 @ 03:41 PM
link   
Out of curiosity , could a super tucano take off a ski ramp carrier and land on one without a tail hook ?



posted on Jan, 21 2017 @ 04:44 PM
link   
a reply to: yittak

Not with maximum payload, but theoretically it could. Stall speed is around 80 knots.



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join