View Full Version : The Afghan Air Force
Being a patch collector of sorts, I recently obtained the below patch off of E-Bay. This represents the Embraer A-29 Super Tucano, a Brazilian-designed light attack plane that is being procured for the Afghan Air Force by the US through the FMS program. Presumably the black area in the design is a map of Afghanistan.
Some have said that the US is providing 20 of these propeller-driven aircraft (instead of some sort of jets) is in case the "Afghan Air Force" becomes the "Taliban Air Force" , the amount of capability they'll have will be limited. Logical or just Internet ramblings?
http://i571.photobucket.com/albums/ss158/5757_photos/a-29_zpssdov3xf1.jpg (http://s571.photobucket.com/user/5757_photos/media/a-29_zpssdov3xf1.jpg.html)
Reminds me of a saying I heard once "We taught you everything you know, not everything WE know"
Whether that claim is truthful or not, it make sense to give the Afghan AF only prop plane with ground support weapons. There is no air threat for them to deal with, single engine props are quicker to learn to operate and maintain (remember the Afghans are technologically challenged, they're not exactly Luke Skywalkers), cheaper to maintain, cheaper to supply and replace when these new flyboys really/honestly accidentally fly one or a few into the mountain.
Seems like a cool plane with a decent track record (talking to a USAF officer). Almost a modern A-1 skyraider. Most of SAMs points are spot on. No air threat for them and they will be great for CAS.
And OP yes that is a silhouette of the country on your patch.
You may recall that Beechcraft protested the award of this contract to Sierra Nevada/Embraer (twice, in fact). Beechcraft had submitted it's AT-6C but evidently the USAF preferred the A-29. If you're bored, this is the decision:
http://www.gao.gov/assets/660/655470.pdf
May I propose an alternative more suited to the time and place: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polikarpov_Po-2
daddyusmaximus
02-26-16, 20:17
I'd rather they have a jet. (albeit a crappy one) They're more complicated and good chance haji probably couldn't keep them in the air without outside support. (that we could take away) They will figure a way to keep a piston engine aircraft running.
I've been thinking that a prop aircraft like the P-47 or P-38 could be brought back in the ground attack role for the budget minded nations. They are stable, simple, and cheep. Only thing is, it's tough to beat what I consider the best aircraft for this role, an A-10. Never could figure out why the Air Force tried to kill it. My main concern is that whatever other nations get, we must have better, and more.
I
I've been thinking that a prop aircraft like the P-47 or P-38 could be brought back in the ground attack role for the budget minded nations. They are stable, simple, and cheep.
How many P47 and P38 are still flying? outside of the few historical collectors and restorers, there can't be an abundant of spare parts to keep those buckets flying. Even more contemporary planes such as the T-28 and Skyraiders are hard to find.
A more modern plane with readily available manufacturing support would be the smart move.
I would be very surprised to learn that the U.S. had any inventory remotely related to WW2 prop combat aircraft which became obsolete in 1945. The A1 Sky Raider missed WW2 but served well in Korea and Vietnam. Then or now, any with liquid cooling instead of air cool systems faired poorly for close air support. One bullet in one hose ended the day.
My guess is that Pakistan will sell planes from their very large air force to them but just remembered that A. has no money so what does that tell you?
SeriousStudent
02-26-16, 23:35
I loved the Skyraider. There's one in the Royal Thai Air Force Museum in Bangkok that is very sweet.
personally, I think that there were a lot of great airplanes that we put out into the bone yard way too soon.
A-4 Skyhawk - would be the best trainer and light support aircraft, too old for precision attack but would work well for observation platform
A-7 Corsair II - we could have used it for a trainer, or air guard or maritime patrol
F-14 Tomcat - way too soon!! so what if it was old, the b-52s are old, they should have changed the role, maritime patrol, electronic warfare etc
F-4 Phantom - probably one of the greatest airplanes ever! we had thousands and could be used as trainers or air guard
F-8 Crusader - multi role, refuel, recon, patrol, trainer.
All these aircraft were serviceable and aircraft carrier certified. We should of kept the USS Ranger and USS Intrepid, USS Midway and USS Independence as US Navy/ USMC general purpose aircraft carriers that work with amphibious assault ships.
Moose-Knuckle
02-27-16, 02:36
An Aermacchi SF.260TP:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=14PMgikQ6oo
personally, I think that there were a lot of great airplanes that we put out into the bone yard way too soon.
A-4 Skyhawk - would be the best trainer and light support aircraft, too old for precision attack but would work well for observation platform
A-7 Corsair II - we could have used it for a trainer, or air guard or maritime patrol
F-14 Tomcat - way too soon!! so what if it was old, the b-52s are old, they should have changed the role, maritime patrol, electronic warfare etc
F-4 Phantom - probably one of the greatest airplanes ever! we had thousands and could be used as trainers or air guard
F-8 Crusader - multi role, refuel, recon, patrol, trainer.
All these aircraft were serviceable and aircraft carrier certified. We should of kept the USS Ranger and USS Intrepid, USS Midway and USS Independence as US Navy/ USMC general purpose aircraft carriers that work with amphibious assault ships.
All cool jets for sure, but what do you mean exactly when you say we could have used the A-7 and F-4 as "trainers or air guard"? They both were in the ANG inventory. Are you saying we should still be flying them?
The propeller-driven A-1's were very effective in Vietnam - until the shoulder-launched SA-7 made it's appearance. Then they were pretty much sitting ducks (no IRCM on those planes). I would imagine that the same would be true for the A-29's in Afghanistan if Stinger-type weapons were widely available.
They will figure a way to keep a piston engine aircraft running.
This airplane is a turbine aircraft. Turbo-prop's are potentially MORE complicated than a regular turbo-fan or turbo jet because of the gear boxes and what not associated with the turbo-prop.
personally, I think that there were a lot of great airplanes that we put out into the bone yard way too soon.
A-4 Skyhawk - would be the best trainer and light support aircraft, too old for precision attack but would work well for observation platform
A-7 Corsair II - we could have used it for a trainer, or air guard or maritime patrol
F-14 Tomcat - way too soon!! so what if it was old, the b-52s are old, they should have changed the role, maritime patrol, electronic warfare etc
F-4 Phantom - probably one of the greatest airplanes ever! we had thousands and could be used as trainers or air guard
F-8 Crusader - multi role, refuel, recon, patrol, trainer.
All these aircraft were serviceable and aircraft carrier certified. We should of kept the USS Ranger and USS Intrepid, USS Midway and USS Independence as US Navy/ USMC general purpose aircraft carriers that work with amphibious assault ships.
Everything boils down to maintenance costs. When an F18 takes say 5 hours MX for every hour it flies an F14 would take 10-15-20 as it aged. Same with the rest of those A/C. Also depot rebuild costs get crazy expensive especially once you fly past the design life. The B52 is INCREDIBLY expensive to maintain, but we dont have a replacement as the B2 is even more expensive to maintain. This new B21 that was proposed a few days ago will most likely kill the B1, B52 and possibly even the B2. The technology is mature to build this new one for a lot less cost than the original B2. Still wont be cheap.
My airline is flying some a/c past the design life and every time it goes in for heavy maintenance it gets increasingly expensive. The A/C was designed to fly for 15 years or so and has progressive heavy checks to that point. Once you go past that its crazy money. One of the things that our mechanics have to do when an older A/C comes in for heavy check is to pull EVERY BOLT out of the wing spar(about 100 from what I understand) and x-ray every bolt from 2 angles(x ray, roll bolt 90 degrees, x ray). We've parked about 100 A/C over the past 2 years or so due to this.
KalashniKEV
02-27-16, 09:42
Presumably the black area in the design is a map of Afghanistan.
LOL... not "presumably" mah ninja, that is indeed the shape of the country of Afghanistan.
Some have said that the US is providing 20 of these propeller-driven aircraft (instead of some sort of jets) is in case the "Afghan Air Force" becomes the "Taliban Air Force" , the amount of capability they'll have will be limited.
The opposite.
Super T's are one of the most badass platforms ever fielded.
The WWII-Era Plane Giving the F-35 a Run for Its Money
http://motherboard.vice.com/read/low-and-slow
If the Army bought some, I would definitely go back for a few years without hesitation.
LOL... not "presumably" mah ninja, that is indeed the shape of the country of Afghanistan.
The opposite.
Super T's are one of the most badass platforms ever fielded.
The WWII-Era Plane Giving the F-35 a Run for Its Money
http://motherboard.vice.com/read/low-and-slow
If the Army bought some, I would definitely go back for a few years without hesitation.
It's probably a safer bet than selling them F-16's.
Everything boils down to maintenance costs. When an F18 takes say 5 hours MX for every hour it flies an F14 would take 10-15-20 as it aged. Same with the rest of those A/C. Also depot rebuild costs get crazy expensive especially once you fly past the design life. The B52 is INCREDIBLY expensive to maintain, but we dont have a replacement as the B2 is even more expensive to maintain. This new B21 that was proposed a few days ago will most likely kill the B1, B52 and possibly even the B2. The technology is mature to build this new one for a lot less cost than the original B2. Still wont be cheap.
My airline is flying some a/c past the design life and every time it goes in for heavy maintenance it gets increasingly expensive. The A/C was designed to fly for 15 years or so and has progressive heavy checks to that point. Once you go past that its crazy money. One of the things that our mechanics have to do when an older A/C comes in for heavy check is to pull EVERY BOLT out of the wing spar(about 100 from what I understand) and x-ray every bolt from 2 angles(x ray, roll bolt 90 degrees, x ray). We've parked about 100 A/C over the past 2 years or so due to this.
Everything boils down to maintenance costs. When an F18 takes say 5 hours MX for every hour it flies an F14 would take 10-15-20 as it aged. Same with the rest of those A/C. Also depot rebuild costs get crazy expensive especially once you fly past the design life. The B52 is INCREDIBLY expensive to maintain, but we dont have a replacement as the B2 is even more expensive to maintain. This new B21 that was proposed a few days ago will most likely kill the B1, B52 and possibly even the B2. The technology is mature to build this new one for a lot less cost than the original B2. Still wont be cheap.
My airline is flying some a/c past the design life and every time it goes in for heavy maintenance it gets increasingly expensive. The A/C was designed to fly for 15 years or so and has progressive heavy checks to that point. Once you go past that its crazy money. One of the things that our mechanics have to do when an older A/C comes in for heavy check is to pull EVERY BOLT out of the wing spar(about 100 from what I understand) and x-ray every bolt from 2 angles(x ray, roll bolt 90 degrees, x ray). We've parked about 100 A/C over the past 2 years or so due to this.
Excellent explanation of why we fly those aircraft any more.
LOL... not "presumably" mah ninja, that is indeed the shape of the country of Afghanistan.
The opposite.
Super T's are one of the most badass platforms ever fielded.
The WWII-Era Plane Giving the F-35 a Run for Its Money
http://motherboard.vice.com/read/low-and-slow
If the Army bought some, I would definitely go back for a few years without hesitation.
I agree, the Super T's are awesome. I got to fly a Super Tucano on visit with the RAF. It's a fantastic aircraft with excellent power and maneuverability. Incredible in the low-level environment. IMHO would be a great aircraft for the ANG. Relatively inexpensive ($1,000 per flight hour vs $22,000 for an F-16) with multi-role capabilities (smart munitions, battlefield sensors, AIM-9x).
daddyusmaximus
02-27-16, 12:17
How many P47 and P38 are still flying? outside of the few historical collectors and restorers, there can't be an abundant of spare parts to keep those buckets flying. Even more contemporary planes such as the T-28 and Skyraiders are hard to find.
A more modern plane with readily available manufacturing support would be the smart move.
I was thinking more on the order of a modern equivalent, new production, with modern electronics and systems, with computer controlled fuel injected engines in modern cars. Probably just dreaming. I love prop planes.
I believe Super Tucano is also cleared to deliver GBU-12's, which is fairly impressive for a prop job.
All cool jets for sure, but what do you mean exactly when you say we could have used the A-7 and F-4 as "trainers or air guard"? They both were in the ANG inventory. Are you saying we should still be flying them?
absolutely!. Cost is relative. Japan still flies the F-4 and maintains a fleet. The problem with old military aircraft is parts. There should be a parts replacement plan set in place when the initial order is placed. That's why its expensive to maintain these aircraft.
KalashniKEV
02-27-16, 13:08
AT-6C Coyote is no joke either...
http://warisboring.com/articles/to-strike-the-islamic-state-america-should-unleash-light-attack-planes/comment-page-6/
I will be brief because I am not qualified to say much on the subject. I do know that certain folks(companies)search the world for new and used parts for obsolete air craft. When these parts are listed in our government surplus sales, bidders appear from everywhere. It seems that used parts are enabling very many planes to continue to fly. I was told by one guy in this business that the industry lost the capability to manufacture some of this stuff because the necessary machinery(and the factories)disappeared decades ago. Expense aside, liability is the big reason that manufacturers will not consider tooling up to make new airplane parts. Lawyers would dance in the streets if they did.
I learned that in our military parts cannibalization among the same models is essential to keep our planes going. This fact surprised me.
About the Skyraider, its single engine had so much torque that it could twist the plane around. I think this engine was the same as those used on the big B-29.
absolutely!. Cost is relative. Japan still flies the F-4 and maintains a fleet. The problem with old military aircraft is parts. There should be a parts replacement plan set in place when the initial order is placed. That's why its expensive to maintain these aircraft.
The expense of the parts themselves is only part of the equation. How often parts need to be replaced, and how long it takes to physically replace parts are a huge factor. Reread rjacobs post. Major, depot level maintenance is super expensive. Not only are F-16s and F-18s more easier and cheaper to maintain, they have higher mission capable rates and have vastly more capabilities than and A-7 or an F-4. Could we fly those retired planes? Sure we could, but just we could doesn't mean we should.
I loved the Skyraider. There's one in the Royal Thai Air Force Museum in Bangkok that is very sweet.
A friend's dad flew those off of a carrier (I forget which one) during Vietnam. He spoke highly of them as well.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I'd rather they have a jet. (albeit a crappy one) They're more complicated and good chance haji probably couldn't keep them in the air without outside support. (that we could take away) They will figure a way to keep a piston engine aircraft running.
I've been thinking that a prop aircraft like the P-47 or P-38 could be brought back in the ground attack role for the budget minded nations. They are stable, simple, and cheep. Only thing is, it's tough to beat what I consider the best aircraft for this role, an A-10. Never could figure out why the Air Force tried to kill it. My main concern is that whatever other nations get, we must have better, and more.
It is a turboprop... not a piston engine aircraft. Think turbine engine (jet) connected to propeller.
A P-47 or 38. Well, I can tell you the operating costs on those per hour are likely close to what you make a week. Not to mention they are not made anymore. There was a period of time where there was only ONE P-38 flying in the whole world. And frankly, the maintenance on those beasts (especially the -47) was a nightmare. The P-47 frequently fouled plugs and you would have to change some 24 at a time in very hard to get to places. The number of people left that can reliably work on any of those aircraft and engines you can count on your hands. As an aircraft mechanic who has spent some amount of time wrenching these aircraft, this is my lane.
I'd suggest frankly that your hypothesis is actually backward.
The expense of the parts themselves is only part of the equation. How often parts need to be replaced, and how long it takes to physically replace parts are a huge factor. Reread rjacobs post. Major, depot level maintenance is super expensive. Not only are F-16s and F-18s more easier and cheaper to maintain, they have higher mission capable rates and have vastly more capabilities than and A-7 or an F-4. Could we fly those retired planes? Sure we could, but just we could doesn't mean we should.
This is true. Another limiting factor is airframe hours. The airframes are engineered to be able to withstand only a certain period of time at certain stresses then metal fatigue takes over. Parts alone doesn't cut it. Think about having a wing break off in flight or the fuselage break in two while flying. There is damned good reasons things are retired and not brought back. F-4's can still be reliably used as an interceptor alone. A single purpose aircraft. Other than that it is a big liability in the sky when missles are in the air.
One of the problems with our military is they waste billions. They spend $25 million on a airplane but don't want to spend thousands to keep airworthy.
38090
That is a bomb handling lift truck, they cost roughly $160k, our company made 288 of the lifting arms (bomb loading arm) at $48k a piece in 2007. None of them ever saw action or were unboxed and assembled. They were all (288) scrapped in 2015. Pull out a calculator and figure out how much that entire order was. Or better yet, go look at the US aircraft bone yard in Arizona. 80% of those aircraft were airworthy and fully operational at the time of being mothballed. I can see why scrapping a plane when a company like Vought, LTV, Douglas or Grumman gets bought out or merges with another company and they put all there energy into a new aircraft design. But to throw away a perfectly flyable airplane is beyond me.
AT-6C Coyote is no joke either...
http://warisboring.com/articles/to-strike-the-islamic-state-america-should-unleash-light-attack-planes/comment-page-6/
Great article, Thanks for sharing.
If I won the PowerBall, then I buy either one of those planes.;)
One of the problems with our military is they waste billions. They spend $25 million on a airplane but don't want to spend thousands to keep airworthy.
38090
That is a bomb handling lift truck, they cost roughly $160k, our company made 288 of the lifting arms (bomb loading arm) at $48k a piece in 2007. None of them ever saw action or were unboxed and assembled. They were all (288) scrapped in 2015. Pull out a calculator and figure out how much that entire order was. Or better yet, go look at the US aircraft bone yard in Arizona. 80% of those aircraft were airworthy and fully operational at the time of being mothballed. I can see why scrapping a plane when a company like Vought, LTV, Douglas or Grumman gets bought out or merges with another company and they put all there energy into a new aircraft design. But to throw away a perfectly flyable airplane is beyond me.
So if you are an Air Force Pilot, you'd be ok flying an F-4 into combat vs. modern enemy aircraft? No offense, but...
Fvvvvvvvvck THAT!
Give me the F-22.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
All other things being equal (or at least similar), I would imagine that a Brazilian-manufactured Super Tucano would be cheaper than a US-manufactured AT-6C.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.