Aviation Pictures: A-Seven-th Thread--CorsAirin' Through Time and Airspace

[worktroll]

In a newspaper report, I did see a theory that it's meant to break up the shape of the plane from automated shape-sensing algorithms that may be being used for drone targetting. The same article mentioned at least one of the covered airframes was currently lacking propellors, so there may be some decoy use going on?

But also considering the "cardboard" drones - more like flat-pack, waterproofed foamcore, and made here in Australia - are operated, not autonomous, this may be intended against some other perceived threat.

[Sabelkatten]

It might just be a simple case of "taking what you have available". (Very) large pieces of canvas or loads of sandbags might be hard to find while there's a scrapyard with acres of used-up tires next door.

[Failure16]

In a newspaper report, I did see a theory that it's meant to break up the shape of the plane from automated shape-sensing algorithms that may be being used for drone targetting. The same article mentioned at least one of the covered airframes was currently lacking propellors, so there may be some decoy use going on?

But also considering the "cardboard" drones - more like flat-pack, waterproofed foamcore, and made here in Australia - are operated, not autonomous, this may be intended against some other perceived threat.

Noted...but the tires being confined to the wings and central fuselage make it seem unlikely any algorithms would be fooled. The human eye certainly is not, and we are (one presumes) laypersons in this regard here.

It might just be a simple case of "taking what you have available". (Very) large pieces of canvas or loads of sandbags might be hard to find while there's a scrapyard with acres of used-up tires next door.

Perhaps. But, in war, sometimes a stopgap measure is worse than nothing at all, because it is a waste of time, the materials being used, and lulls you into a false sense of security. Kind of like taking technicals up against a motivated, well trained military force. They merely exist to get your soldiery used up faster than if they were simply light infantry.

[worktroll]

That seems to be the Russian SOP at the moment though ...

[Failure16]

Touché.

But I am neither surprised nor saddened by all of that, though.

[Failure16]

Turns out Jimmy Buffet anonymously donated two of his WWII vintage aircraft, a Grumman Goose and Stearman, to a museum last year:



Read more here.

Quite a character and gentleman when it all came down to it. Fair seas and following winds, good sir...

[Daryk]

I had no idea he even HAD WWII vintage aircraft...

[Cannonshop]

I had no idea he even HAD WWII vintage aircraft...

at one time, when you and I were little kids, WWII vintage aircraft were actually something of a bargain in the aircraft market.  (This would be before the Billionaires weighed in to the collecting market, y'all).

[chanman]

In what probably isn't surprising news to anyone given the fires this year, order books for water bombers are filling up. DeHavilland Canada has an interesting history - they're not the original company, which was acquired by Boeing in 1986 and then sold to Bombardier in 1992 and effectively disappeared.

Viking Air (a major parts supplier) bought the type certificates for defunct models in the mid-2000s and started making new Twin Otters. The parent company of Viking Air recently bought the Dash 8/Q400 project/type certificates and the DeHavilland Canada trademarks from Bombardier and has rebranded under that name.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/water-bombers-de-havilland-canada-1.6958748

Dangerous work. I think there's been a number of fatal accidents with water bombers and fire fighting aircraft in general this year.

The original piston-powered CL-215


CL-215T Turboprop refit



CL-415/515/DHC-515

[Daryk]

Fantastic shots of those water bombers! :)

[Failure16]

Agreed, a great collection of shots for some hard-working planes and aircrews!



Like leprosy, the infection continues to spread...

[worktroll]

The fact they've hung tires on the end of the wingtip tubes suggests silhouette-breaking. But still not convinced.

[Failure16]

Yep. Because no algorithm looking for SU-34s (of Flanker-family friends) would possibly be looking for the shapes of the actual airframes, because the tires are really not doing anything to change that at all.

[chanman]

Yep. Because no algorithm looking for SU-34s (of Flanker-family friends) would possibly be looking for the shapes of the actual airframes, because the tires are really not doing anything to change that at all.

Maybe someone got really badly gaslit. Assuming that's not the case though, that presumably means they've done a technical analysis of the remains of attacking drones/have intelligence sources about how the drones or cruise missiles do terminal guidance.

It's not going to fool the operator of a quadcopter, but munitions aren't exactly high-powered computing devices and image recognition is still a complex and computationally expensive task.

Seems like the tires might mess up a contrast seeker (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contrast_seeker), and due to the different materials relative to the aircraft, it might even work on IR systems as well.

[Daryk]

At least the guy selling the tires is making some money... ;D

[Failure16]

At this point, I'm surprised they aren't simply selling the Flankers. Make profit, not war, kind of thing. But I guess the SU-34 et als are doing better than the SU-25s (or even KA-52s).*



*Which is something the die-hard A-10 fanboys should be paying attention to, at least in broad strokes. And yes, I am ignoring counterarguments about the A-10's relative toughness because even their airframe can only take so much abuse before the aircraft quits being operational--regardless of if it got the pilot back to base or not. That last bit is very important for a variety of reasons (from moral to even strategic if taken in a long enough view), but it is not a compelling argument for a force with a restricted number of a given type, and that includes the mighty USAF/N/MC. This isn't WWII, where you just get another P- or F-Whatever shipped to you or taken out of stores.

[Daryk]

Task and Purpose has a good video about the A-10's imminent retirement... sad to say he makes a lot of sense...

[MoneyLovinOgre4Hire]

What are the odds of a replacement aircraft that packs the GAU-8 being built?

[Failure16]

Loitering somewhere around zero, probably. But I could be wrong.

[Daryk]

After watching the Task and Purpose video, definitely zero.

[Cannonshop]

Loitering somewhere around zero, probably. But I could be wrong.

The Air Force doesn't really LIKE or WANT the CAS role, they want the funding and manning, but they've never wanted the role.

so yeah, probably another boom-and-zoomie more designed to fight other fighters than a low-end tactical bomber meant to hang around below 30,000 feet.

After all, "Stealthy supersawnics" are sexier.

[chanman]

What are the odds of a replacement aircraft that packs the GAU-8 being built?

Maybe they'll stick the GAU-8 in a new AC-130 variant, but barring that, not unless someone's figured out a way to give a gun more range than SHORAD missiles.

[chanman]

At this point, I'm surprised they aren't simply selling the Flankers. Make profit, not war, kind of thing. But I guess the SU-34 et als are doing better than the SU-25s (or even KA-52s).*



*Which is something the die-hard A-10 fanboys should be paying attention to, at least in broad strokes. And yes, I am ignoring counterarguments about the A-10's relative toughness because even their airframe can only take so much abuse before the aircraft quits being operational--regardless of if it got the pilot back to base or not. That last bit is very important for a variety of reasons (from moral to even strategic if taken in a long enough view), but it is not a compelling argument for a force with a restricted number of a given type, and that includes the mighty USAF/N/MC. This isn't WWII, where you just get another P- or F-Whatever shipped to you or taken out of stores.

There were a number of Su-35 deals in negotiations that were scuppered by the war. (Egypt, Indonesia) and interest/more tentative discussions with the UAE, Algeria, and possibly Iran. Part of the issue is that embargoes both make it harder for the Russians to make them and for them to be paid for the sales.

As for the Su-34, there's probably a combination of cost (they're ungodly expensive) and Russian reluctance to sell some of the EW gear (lest details be leaked) coupled with being an unusual capability (very long range strike) that isn't in high demand elsewhere or can't just be handled by the Su-30 or Su-35.

I also wouldn't rule out the possibility that they may fly a little funny. They're about 50% heavier than the other Flankers, with the bigger crew cabin, but still use roughly the same engines and wings.

[Failure16]

The Air Force doesn't really LIKE or WANT the CAS role, they want the funding and manning, but they've never wanted the role.

so yeah, probably another boom-and-zoomie more designed to fight other fighters than a low-end tactical bomber meant to hang around below 30,000 feet.

After all, "Stealthy supersawnics" are sexier.

Those boom-and-zoomies are what has been doing the majority of CAS over the last twenty years. And those USAF arrowheads have been doing a lot of that CAS, too. They have found ways to make strategic bombers and even transport planes CAS platforms (in their own fashion). I am no USAF apologist, but to say that portion of the US DOD doesn't want to do what they have been doing almost to the exclusion of what they are being blamed for wanting to do is...ridiculous.

That doesn't mean we shouldn't have a low-end to go with our high-end, but the A-10 isn't the answer for 2024+--and it was even acknowledged that in 1985, it would have been a heavily armored coffin if things had gotten real.

[DOC_Agren]

What are the odds of a replacement aircraft that packs the GAU-8 being built?

My guess is near 0..  while I love the A10 and the upgrade, it is not designed to survive in airspace that is heavy contested.  However the changing to a standoff weapon Truck, might allow it to stay in the fleet, but...
a year ago, they talked about how the USAF was trying to kill it.
https://www.defensenews.com/air/2022/04/28/a-10-official-issues-warning-over-air-forces-devastated-warthog-fleet/
The non retired birds need to be fully upgrade to survive the new threats

That being said, the F35 pilots "to replace A10" are not even doing CAS training mission in 2023 or 2024.  Nor will any F35 be regularly doing true CAS, because it to fast, not having enough weapons, not sure it has redundancy systems like the A-10.

And how long did the A-1 Skyraider stay in servive - 30 years before the USAF retired them by handing them off to RVNAF.   They could have kept them, but CAS mission.  Now my question is if the USAF doesn't want them, could the USMC take them over?

[Failure16]

It has to be able to take off and land on a carrier to work its way into USMC Aviation. And they are going towards a F-35-pure fixed-wing force anyway. So, no. Not saying I agree with the F-35-pure MAWs, but there it is.

Why did the USAF stop using the A-1? The same reasons the USN did, one imagines.

By the time they stopped, the youngest airframes were nearing the twenty-year mark. There were other planes that could do the job of delivering ordnance to the ground. Those planes could get to the operational area faster and work synergistically with the rest of the strike package and the constraints of the friendly airfield (be they traditional ones or carriers on-station somewhere). And the USAF in particular already had a newer model of the A-1 coming on-line within a few years. It was called the A-10.

You know, for that CAS mission the zoomies don't want and never do.

It is interesting that the USAF gets so much grief for not wanting to do CAS, and that the A-10 is the absolute bestest airframe to do it in living memory, but no one says anything to the USN or USMC who do CAS all the time (the latter, inarguably, being known for it) and have never flown A-10s so far as I know (I mean even an active-duty test pilot here, not in an operational squadron).

For those interested, the article that DOC is likely referring to (almost verbatim) can be found here. From what I can tell, its central theme is based on this memorandum that, while interesting, is mostly redacted, with the notable exception of a chart detailing mission/task training hours, where the CAS line is blank (but SEAD, for example, is not).

Statements to the contrary notwithstanding, it is possible that the USAF envisions its F-35s doing other things than CAS for the time being while jets like the F-16 and F-15E do the CAS role. Given its fundamental attributes, the F-35 seems tailor-made for SEAD and precision strikes, so I get why the USAF would focus on those missions for the time being.

Since we are talking about, if you want to know about US military CAS doctrine, look here. And try this paper for a good overview of the A-10's contribution to CAS over the last forty years, the challenges it faces today, and what it all means for the poor saps getting all hot and bothered on the ground.

[Daryk]

Precision strikes are good, but there's really no morale boost like that of seeing an aircraft share the risk you're facing on the ground while eliminating that risk for you.  It's straight Napoleon: the moral is the physical as three is to one.

[Failure16]

You are surely correct. Indeed, that aspect even found itself into the RAND paper (the last link).

Of course, one imagines morale would suffer when those in contact see their friendly, ass-kicking A-10 or F-35 or whatever take a MANPADS.

There are no easy answers. But I do believe we need a CAS option for at least a mid-intensity fight against an adversary with at least some peer-level gear that can do its job in a workmanlike fashion and not cost 80 million USD while its doing it.

It is believed that the A-10 has another 20 years of airframe life left after its upgrades, but the USAF thinks it can save 3+ billion retiring it. I think the real answer is to turn it into a drone, accept the cost of retention, and let the F-35 work itself out like every other combat aircraft we have procured.

[Daryk]

They're really fighting this fight to save all of $3B?  That's not much of a hill to die on...

[Failure16]

Well, 3.7bn USD as of 2013...https://breakingdefense.com/2013/12/air-force-chief-says-cutting-a-10-fleet-would-save-3-7-billion/#:~:text=But%20Air%20Force%20Chief%20of%20Staff%20Gen.%20Mark,the%20next%20decade%20in%20the%20face%20of%20sequestration.