Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I suspect that the lack of money will squeeze out anything larger. I have wondered if something this small might have a niche role in shooting down mini-drones.
Online I came across something that was highly critical of this aircraft in the CAS role-Quora. Military Aircraft: Is The Sadler Piranha actually a good solution for some missions?
Last edited by Tim Randal Walker; 10-10-2017 at 06:06 PM..
Just about all of the physical manufacturing we have left is military and the government pays a huge markup on the items purchased.
What on earth are you talking about? US manufacturing output is high as ever, and while some of the top manufacturers (like Boeing) do produce military hardware it isn't the bulk of their business. GE, General Motors, Ford, Johnson & Johnson, Proctor & Gamble, Dell, Caterpillar, Dow Chemical, Intel, Kraft, United Technologies, Cisco, Dupont, 3M, etc. the list goes on and on.
The problem with US manufacturing isn't output, it's the drop in employment.
Reminds me once of what a General said in discussion about the OV-1 Mohawk.
"You are essentially talking about a WWII fighter."--General
"Like a Mosquito?"--Me
"More like an Me-110."
Came across an online article, Old School COIN Planes Keep Coming Back by John Reed. The article describes an OV-1 Mohawk being pulled from a boneyard and being fitted with new gear-including the gun used on the Apache helicopter.
In August, the Air Force conducted the Light Attack Experiment, or OA-X, at Holloman Air Force Base in New Mexico. The service said OA-X was part its efforts to "explore cost-effective attack platform options" and featured Textron's Scorpion and AT-6 Wolverine, the Super Tucano A-29 made by Embraer and Sierra Nevada, and Air Tractor's AT-802L Longsword.
While Air Force leadership expects to make a final decision about combat-testing by the end of the year, Aviation Week reports that it has already selected some of aircraft tested in August — two each of the A-29 Super Tucano and the AT-6 Wolverine — for testing in a combat environment.
The exercise would be done in an area under the purview of US Central Command, which oversees operations in the Middle East, according to Aviation Week. The exact location hasn't been selected, though some areas — like parts of Syria too close to Russian air defenses — have been ruled out. The tests would focus on the aircraft's weapons capabilities as well as their maintenance needs and reliability.
These used to train out of Willow Grave Naval Air Station near my home growing up in PA. My dad was an ATC and would work these guys as they practiced making runs. He said the pilots loved flying them and were bummed when they were taken out of service...
I use to play golf at the course next to NAS Willow Grove, and remember seeing them fly around there. Later it was P-3 Orions that I mostly would see, and hear on Philly ATC when I'd be the Class B airspace.
An A-1 Skyraider would be a logistical nightmare to operate as would ANY piston airplane as they would have to supply both 100LL, and Jet A (or any of the JP-s).
Pictures of these WW2 look-alikes all decked out with new gear just make my heart go "pitty-pat". I haven't any real idea whether they will perform adequately in today's environment, but they look like good idea.
But then I'm kinda weird. I'm a sailplane pilot, and my idea of the plane I always wanted to fly was the C-130.
There a quite a few arguments for and against the low-cost turboprop aircraft decked out with high-tech sensors and weapons.
For:
1. Low cost
2. Simple to operate and maintain (especially anything powered by a PT6 turboprop)
3. Can operate off of unimproved airstrips
4. Generally have long endurance and excellent maneuverability (straight wings, cambered airfoils)
5. Low infrared signature (the props really dissipate the heat)
Against:
1. Slow (limited reaction time to divert to firefights or troops-in-contact)
2. Limited load capacity
3. Huge radar cross-section with those props
4. Telltale noise is persistent and makes anti-aircraft gunner acquisition easier
5. Slow (different reason, involves getting away from threats)
And the biggest limitation: In any contested airspace (enemy has either capable fighter aircraft or SAMs), the prop aircraft requires an accompanying air-to-air escort (F-15, -16, -18, -22, et al) or anti-SAM escort (F-16CM, EA-18, EA-6).
Their single mission makes them less desirable when you're trying to get the best bang for the buck, but they have their place in low-threat arenas. Like this POS I used to fly:
Came across an online article, Old School COIN Planes Keep Coming Back by John Reed. The article describes an OV-1 Mohawk being pulled from a boneyard and being fitted with new gear-including the gun used on the Apache helicopter.
To be used by which service? Which agency?
An armed Mohawk in Army service would draw objections by the Air Force for armed fixed wings are clearly their territory.
An armed Mohawk in Army service would draw objections by the Air Force for armed fixed wings are clearly their territory.
The Mohawk wasn't armed inspite of having pylons wired for spotting rockets because the AF objected. O-1 spotter planes were USAF because they were armed with spotting rockets. The Key West agreement was strong!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
