Comments on: JFCOM’s Mattis Pushes Light IW Aircraft

By: warner mobley

warner mobley — Sat, 27 Mar 2010 00:26:29 +0000

Mattis — Isn’t that the guy who is trying to hang Wuterich?

By: STemplar

STemplar — Fri, 26 Mar 2010 08:18:18 +0000

Everyone points out airframes of by gone times. There were many that will fill the role, but “bringing something back” in many cases isn’t possible, or is vastly more expensive than just buying something off the shelf now. The A10s are already going through a SLEP and we intend to keep them, but they are still a bit of a gold hammer driving a nail. They were meant to be tank killers, not donkey killers. We are spending about 20 million per A10 to just upgrade them, building more, if we even had an assembly line, which we don’t, would be very pricey. The Super Tucanos and AT-6s are in production, they cost like 8 or 9 millionish each. We also don’t need hundreds of them. I would say go with the AT-6s for several reasons.

1. American made, what the heck.
2. Existing production line.
3. It is what we are training our pilots to fly in anyway.
4. We have the existing logistics in place as it is an existing trainer aircraft.
5. Its cheaper than a Super Tucano.

By: B.Miller

B.Miller — Thu, 25 Mar 2010 21:05:45 +0000

Whenever we look into cheap it only brings one thought to mind; have we put the pilots life in jeopardy? What I’m seeing in this article are very light aircraft with no armor protection and a slow flyer at that; anybody holding a rifle has a chance of bringing these down. Why would we put a multimillion dollar pilot in jeopardy. whats more who would fly this outside the US?

By: SMSgt Mac

SMSgt Mac — Thu, 25 Mar 2010 04:17:25 +0000

RE: "This is war Senior" Thanks for pointing that out. I was wondering what all the hullabaloo was behind those 'imponderables' sitting in the center of my professional life for the last 37 years. RE: "People get shot at and if that means a pilot needs to go lower to get a better SA, then so be it." I agree. If we disagree at all it is because I assert that flying lower does not neccessarily give one better SA and if one does not need to be shot at, one should avoid getting shot at. If people are going to talk 'cost' and 'price' they should be prepared to talk 'value'. Without understanding what is bought for the price given, then popping off about the dollars being 'too high' is just screaming one thing: ignorance. C'mon people - let's bust 100 comments!

By: SMSgt Mac

SMSgt Mac — Thu, 25 Mar 2010 02:51:43 +0000

What is important is knowing what the General said, and knowing enough about air warfare and aerospace theory to see where the flaws are in his assumptions/assertions.

By: Mastro

Mastro — Wed, 24 Mar 2010 18:40:23 +0000

You can fly on that huge target first (and last) time in battle.

It was also take too long to get to the fight.

By: TacoRocco

TacoRocco — Wed, 24 Mar 2010 17:03:45 +0000

@smsgtmac — Who better to understand the use of airpower than a ground pounder?

By: czech_6

czech_6 — Wed, 24 Mar 2010 16:50:26 +0000

they don’t seem to carry a large enough warload. I was thinking of something along the lines of an unmanned drone with the payload of an Apache (16 Hellfire missiles) or a Warthog (a dozen 500lb bombs).

By: Riceball

Riceball — Wed, 24 Mar 2010 14:27:11 +0000

The only reason why the Hindenburg went up in flames like it did was it because it used hydrogren for lift instead of helium; helium is not flamable and won’t catch on fire.

By: help7219

help7219 — Tue, 23 Mar 2010 22:14:33 +0000

that is the best thing anyone has said they already fill the bill the only thing they could do is buld a 2 seat