Useless against Russia: US Air Force abandoned the purchase of attack aircraft with propellers

February 13 2020 83

The US Air Force decided to abandon the purchase of 300 light attack aircraft with propellers. This is explained by the fact that the Pentagon’s long-term strategy is increasingly shifting toward the confrontation of the “great power” with “countries close to itself”, such as Russia and China. At the same time, these aircraft were intended to fight terrorism. And against Russia, as stated, such aircraft are useless.

The corresponding decision was announced by Spokeswoman for the Air Force Anna Stefanek. However, it is planned to search for equipment that can become an alternative to turboprop attack aircraft. Previously, two units of Textron AT-6 Wolverines and Sierra Nevada A-29 Super Tucanos were purchased. Of these, the winner of a promising contract was to be selected.

It was planned to use the new low-cost attack aircraft in cases where the risk of using the F-35 would not be justified. In particular, due to the low speed, but the long flight, it was expected that the new aircraft would be ideal for patrolling the area during the fight against militants.

But in 2018, a new priority goal was identified in Washington - the confrontation of the armed forces of the Russian Federation and China. With the new approach, the Pentagon realized that the attack aircraft would not bring much benefit. Instead, the command of special operations will acquire 75 unnamed model aircraft.

At the same time, the Air Force intends to write off 44 A-10 attack aircraft from among the "oldest." In total, 237 Warthogs will remain at the disposal of the US military.

Our news channels

Subscribe and stay up to date with the latest news and the most important events of the day.

VK Zen Telegram

Information

Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.

Vladimir_2U

+4

13 February 2020 05: 47

And then, for a penny with the videoconferencing will not work!
300 light attack aircraft with propellers
Helicopters are also with propellers, urgently refuse to pin..os, otherwise it is not logical! )))
1. Victor_B
  
  +1
  
  13 February 2020 06: 04
  
  Carlsons won't help you!
  1. krot
    
    +1
    
    13 February 2020 18: 16
    
    And what are they like that? It seems like zealously tearing these planes to take to the service, supposedly awesome)))) And then to the ballista, they will descend with spears)) What are not the Romans?
2. 4ekist
  
  +1
  
  13 February 2020 10: 43
  
  Such aircraft can be quite used on the set of films about the war.
3. The comment was deleted.
Same lech

+5

13 February 2020 05: 51

Against the Shells, these attack aircraft are like ducks and geese ... the stump is clear that our Willows will flip them into the air.
It remains to apply them only against the Taliban or somewhere in the places of aboriginal residence without air defense equipment.
1. seregatara1969
  
  +2
  
  13 February 2020 07: 10
  
  But it’s interesting - how many kilometers will a night hunter see this hummer? And from what time can it land?
  1. Zaurbek
    
    0
    
    13 February 2020 07: 21
    
    Not the fact that he sees and not the fact that he will land ....
2. Lipchanin
  
  0
  
  13 February 2020 07: 18
  
  Quote: The same LYOKHA
  It remains to use them only against the Taliban or somewhere in the places of residence of the natives without the means of air defense
  
  And they are not going to fight them
  At the same time, these aircraft were intended to fight terrorism. And against Russia, as stated, such aircraft are useless.
3. figwam
  
  +2
  
  13 February 2020 10: 21
  
  US Air Force abandoned the purchase of propeller attack aircraft
  
  Another cut dough.
4. Maestro Alexander
  
  0
  
  13 February 2020 11: 12
  
  The Pentagon also wanted to buy them from Embriere for these purposes (at least officially).
Mavrikiy

-1

13 February 2020 05: 52

Useless against Russia: US Air Force abandoned attack aircraft with propellers
Yes, let the boys play war games.
Tank jacket

+1

13 February 2020 05: 56

Aircraft carriers, F-35, Patriot, are also useless against Russia to abandon them too?
1. Same lech
  
  +2
  
  13 February 2020 05: 58
  
  Aircraft carriers, F-35, Patriot, are also useless against Russia to abandon them too?
  
  Who knows.. .if the development of hypersound and laser systems goes by leaps and bounds, then these types of weapons will turn out to be useless.
  1. YOUR
    
    +4
    
    13 February 2020 06: 09
    
    In order for these tools not to be useless, reconnaissance and target designation tools must go in 10-mile steps.
    And we have the old A-50s only 14 in service and 8 in storage. The A-100 already from 2010, or from 2014, promised to begin deliveries to the troops in 2016, but unfortunately, as usual, things are still there.
    1. Same lech
      
      -3
      
      13 February 2020 06: 12
      
      In order for these tools not to be useless, reconnaissance and target designation tools must go in 10-mile steps.
      
      I agree.
      A-50 and A-100 will also be vulnerable to attack ... glow in the air like Christmas trees for weapons ... I would not bet on them ... we need more reliable means of intelligence.
      1. Kelwin
        
        +4
        
        13 February 2020 06: 18
        
        Or focus on the means of destruction of the so-called decision centers. The point is to drive a trifle, to hammer through the regional KP and that’s it, a blank spot in the operational space ...
      2. Private-K
        
        0
        
        13 February 2020 08: 35
        
        And what will bring down Russian aircraft AWACS?
        What weapons, from which platform?
        Announce the list.
        
        Same lech
        
        0
        
        13 February 2020 09: 15
        
        f-22 ... there was an article on this subject.
        
        Private-K
        
        +5
        
        13 February 2020 09: 27
        
        Bad answer. F22 with AIM120 need to get to the A-50 at a distance of 100-120 km. Who would allow him that? Air battle with growing up. cover fighters are inevitable and the result is not a foregone conclusion. But you need to cleanly take - Chik - and remove the A-50 from the flight mission. But this is not.
        And here everything is logical. The United States (for others, and there’s no talk) never even bothered with such a problem as the destruction of aircraft DRLOU pr-ka. And the USSR and, after that, the Russian Federation - got confused. And they did something. And for the foreseeable future, the Russian Federation will see a platform and a rocket for such a specialized purpose from a very long distance.
        That is, in real life and for the foreseeable future, the United States has nothing to quickly and clearly destroy the Russian DRLOU system.
        
        Same lech
        
        0
        
        13 February 2020 09: 29
        
        So it is claimed that the F-22 is invisible to our radars with an EPR of 0.000 ... there from a certain date. ... or something.
        
        Private-K
        
        +4
        
        13 February 2020 09: 41
        
        Aw don't have to troll me
        
        PSih2097
        
        0
        
        13 February 2020 17: 57
        
        Quote: The same Lech
        f-22 ... there was an article on this subject.
        
        for this, the "raptor" needs to fly into the territory of the Russian Federation, and this is like Casus Belli ...
        Further, as the info slipped, that the A-100 sees a predator for 100 km, well, the AWACS plane does not fly alone, it is accompanied by 31 MiGs or Sushki 35 ...
      3. mister-red
        
        0
        
        13 February 2020 22: 12
        
        It’s interesting, what will these Christmas trees bring down if they patrol in the depths of their territory, where air-to-air missiles cannot reach?
  2. Tank jacket
    
    +1
    
    13 February 2020 06: 17
    
    Alex, You seem to have been on the VO site for a long time. There are materials about the uselessness of the weapons I have listed.
    1. Same lech
      
      0
      
      13 February 2020 06: 19
      
      You seem to have been on the VO site for a long time. There are materials about the uselessness of the weapons I have listed.
      
      Yes, I am so foolish Thinking in the morning doesn’t work.
2. Lipchanin
  
  -4
  
  13 February 2020 07: 21
  
  Quote: Tank jacket
  Aircraft carriers
  
  On the needles
  , F-35, Patriot,
  
  Buy colormet
  are also useless against Russia
  
  So puff because of the fence
  1. bessmertniy
    
    +3
    
    13 February 2020 08: 55
    
    In principle, it makes sense for the Americans to disband their Armed Forces altogether, realizing that they are ineffective against China and Russia.
    1. Maestro Alexander
      
      0
      
      13 February 2020 12: 03
      
      Hai be. And then we cho, shoot bottles, shole? Nah ... so not interesting.
      1. bessmertniy
        
        +1
        
        13 February 2020 12: 05
        
        Well, if they don’t want to live, then hi.
  2. PSih2097
    
    0
    
    13 February 2020 18: 00
    
    Quote: Lipchanin
    Quote: Tank jacket
    F-35 Patriot
    
    Buy colormet
    
    the amount will be orders of magnitude less than the cost of the finished product ...
Maestro Alexander

+3

13 February 2020 06: 02
With the new approach, the Pentagon realized that the attack aircraft would not bring much benefit.

"What propellers, John? !! They can be" removed "from the attic with a Colt! .."

PS To rephrase the quote: "The Pentagon regained consciousness."
Kelwin

+4

13 February 2020 06: 09

Take biplanes, it is economically viable, they don’t even uncover the zushka))
Amateur

+2

13 February 2020 06: 24

So like Supertoucans they want to buy pots and pans. Now refuse or vice versa +300 pcs. buy
1. Grits
  
  +2
  
  13 February 2020 06: 35
  
  Quote: Amateur
  So like Supertoucans they want to buy pots and pans. Now refuse or vice versa +300 pcs. buy
  
  Now the mattresses will breathe quietly that they could push the unnecessary stuff to the brothers for lack of reason.
KCA

0

13 February 2020 06: 31

We read the news that they want to shorten the R-28M to MI-74, and immediately the meaning disappeared
rotmistr60

+4

13 February 2020 06: 38

against Russia, as stated, such aircraft are useless.
You would think that they really planned to use these aircraft in a possible war with Russia. Another excuse, because obviously there is no demand for these aircraft, but in order to get out of the situation with their heads held high, they decided to refer to Russia.
axiles100682

0

13 February 2020 06: 42

Who knows what the next war will be like, how long it will last, a few minutes or several years? An attack aircraft is certainly necessary as direct support on the battlefield. But the Americans got excited about returning to the propeller, in my opinion it is necessary to create a new aircraft based on ours " Grades of theirs "Warthog".
PS. Why did they make it double?
1. PSih2097
  
  +1
  
  13 February 2020 18: 10
  Quote: axiles100682
  in my opinion it is necessary to create a new plane based on our "Gradations of theirs" Warthog.
  PS. Why did they make it double?
  
  Well, ours made this one in the amount of 1 + 3 pieces, so what? He went to the army - No.
svp67

0

13 February 2020 06: 58

Instead, the command of special operations will acquire 75 unnamed model aircraft.
Interesting, interesting, and how did the Senate Defense Committee approve such a purchase?
Free wind

+3

13 February 2020 06: 59

During the Vietnam War, piston aircraft with propellers were quite successfully used, there were more of them than jet ones, their operation is cheaper than helicopters, the ceiling is several times higher, try to shoot down an aircraft flying at an altitude of 8-10 km with a shell. The range is many times greater, and surpasses any helicopter in cruising and maximum speed. Since now most of the structures are trying to be made of composites, its visibility is not high either. And the thermal signature of such aircraft is much lower than that of turntables, the Americans highly respected the outdated corsairs and sky raders, they were very tenacious and carried quite a few weapons. Minuses the minimum speed is higher and landing on an unprepared site is impossible. Quite a spiteful Buratina. By the way, in Vietnam, the United States lost one and a half thousand more helicopters than planes. Of course, our "Rook" and the American "Warthog" have much more opportunities. But turboprop aircraft can compete with helicopters. Moreover, the evolution of weapons is spiraling. Well, let's say the infantry began to be booked in the distant past, then they refused the armor, now they are booking again at a new level. So that's it.
1. rocket757
  
  0
  
  13 February 2020 07: 24
  
  Quote: Free Wind
  During the Vietnam War,
  
  They didn’t seem to be targeting the "light" enemy. Although, where did that easy opponent stay?
  By the way, for the Shell and others, the corresponding class, our air defense systems, this is a goal at a time.
  It all depends on the quality of the training of the opponents and the equipment equipped with means of destruction / defense.
  No "easy walk" is foreseen for anyone.
2. Same lech
  
  +5
  
  13 February 2020 07: 33
  
  airplane flying at an altitude of 8-10 km.
  
  I don’t think that they will hang out at these heights ... 3-6 km is their glade.
  1. Free wind
    
    -1
    
    13 February 2020 08: 15
    
    And what prevents you from dropping a guided bomb from a height of 9 km and dumping it quietly, and you can't tell him like in the terminator "astanaviska baba."
    1. Same lech
      
      +1
      
      13 February 2020 08: 18
      
      And what prevents you from dropping a guided bomb from a height of 9 km and dumping in a quiet
      
      Speed piston attack aircraft and missiles with Buk ... S-300, S-400 ... what is the probability of survival of these aircraft? ... almost zero ... will be shot down before he can drop this bomb.
      You can try to slip into the folds of the terrain at low altitudes ... but as the practice of the Khmeimim base with drones shows ... even this will not work ... Shells will stop any attempt.
      1. Maestro Alexander
        
        0
        
        13 February 2020 11: 17
        
        Not at all ... The practical ceiling of these coffee grinders is 10 meters, the speed is about 500 km / h.
        And they are not piston. These are turboprop products from Emriere (Brazil). The combat load of 1,5 tons.
        
        your1970
        
        0
        
        13 February 2020 19: 45
        
        And ???? !!! further what ??? at least three times turboprop-Americans REFUSED from them !!!!
rocket757

+1

13 February 2020 07: 16

The US Air Force decided to abandon the purchase of 300 light attack aircraft with propellers. This is explained by the fact that the Pentagon’s long-term strategy is increasingly shifting toward the confrontation of a “great power” with “countries close to itself”

decided not to trade in trifles or guessed it \ realized that they have nothing to catch with this technique?
Thrifty

+1

13 February 2020 07: 26

Would they sell them a Li2 license?
1. Avior
  
  +5
  
  13 February 2020 07: 47
  
  To sell a license for Lee 2, you must first buy a license for DC-3
  Or is the old one still valid?
  Then selling a license for Li-2 is a great deal
2. Wolga
  
  0
  
  14 February 2020 14: 41
  
  Douglas DC-3?
Ros 56

+4

13 February 2020 07: 30
Why the boobies are tormented, they would contact us at DOSAAF and they would be happy.
Lamata

0

13 February 2020 08: 10

Duc against less toothy countries can quite a device.
Cowbra

+5

13 February 2020 08: 52

I translate from the mattress into Russian: On a screw, cheap, attack aircraft - you won’t get much done. Spit. that the USA wars all wars from the 45th exclusively against natives with self-propelled guns, against which the light anti-guerrilla Super Tucano was developed - but cutting them is inconvenient!
The experience of recent military campaigns showed on the one hand that the use of 4th and 5th generation fighter-bombers is a very costly thing, and on the other hand, for example, the loss of 4 U.S. military in Niger is directly related to the lack of air support.

It seems to me, gentlemen, it was a comedy (s)
And unfinished, army-army, but the other day
The command of the special forces of the American army plans to purchase 75 light attack aircraft type A-29 "SuperTukano"
1. Alexey RA
  
  +1
  
  13 February 2020 15: 06
  
  Quote: Cowbra
  The command of the special forces of the American army plans to purchase 75 light attack aircraft type A-29 "SuperTukano"
  
  Hmmm ... will the Air Force allow the army to have armed aircraft? EMNIP, there was already a story with "Bronco".
  1. Cowbra
    
    -1
    
    13 February 2020 15: 16
    
    We live in an amazing time when permissions are not particularly asked, and the rules are not followed. There was already a conversation that the forces of special operations themselves would not fly on them, but that they would put the militants from the Academy - and everything was clean
Grigory_45

+1

13 February 2020 08: 59

Useless against Russia: US Air Force abandoned the purchase of attack aircraft with propellers

Naturally, against a country with serious air defense, these airplanes, at least at the initial stage of the war, are useless from the word at all. But if air defense is whipped out, or against countries that initially did not have it, against bandit formations and partisans, it is quite an apparatus. Aircraft of the "toucan-class" can quite compete with helicopters, and in terms of strikes on the ground and the complexity of maintenance, the aircraft will have an advantage.
The Americans did not acquire these machines to fight Russia - they are not that stupid. To fight the partisans - all sorts of Taliban and others. And also for delivery to "allies" - for actions in Afghanistan, Africa ...
voyaka uh

+4

13 February 2020 10: 59

Refused from a useless purchase.
It struck me that they generally had such an idea about propeller airplanes.
1. Maestro Alexander
  
  +1
  
  13 February 2020 11: 54
  
  It struck me that they generally had such an idea about propeller airplanes.
  
  The Pentagon planned to buy them from Brazil 8-9 years ago for Afgan (as they officially claimed, "to fight the terrorists who flooded their twin towers"), since one takeoff of a toucan costs 4-5 times cheaper than the same F-16, for example. And in terms of performance characteristics, it would seem that they would not be bad for the Afghan "topography".
  Now the "wind" has changed, the "toucans" do not whip. I already wrote about the "Colt and the attic" above.
  1. Tuzik
    
    +1
    
    13 February 2020 12: 13
    
    Quote: Maestro Alexander
    ... since one take-off of a toucan is 4-5 times cheaper than the same F-16 ...
    
    And if you compare with the MQ-9? The drone is already a big plus.
2. Alexey RA
  
  +1
  
  13 February 2020 16: 58
  Quote: voyaka uh
  It struck me that they generally had such an idea about propeller airplanes.
  
  So even the US Air Force’s budget is not rubber.
  
  The ancient "Bronco" in operation turned out to be five times cheaper than an attack UAV.
  Actually, it was the experimental use of the Bronco in 2015 that gave the Air Force the idea that in anti-guerrilla wars (the main ones now for the United States), a screw attack aircraft is the best solution in terms of cost-effectiveness.
  1. voyaka uh
    
    0
    
    13 February 2020 18: 15
    
    "the best solution in terms of cost-effectiveness." ///
    ----
    This is until they knock him down, and a large-scale operation to pull the pilot (or pilot’s body) from the crash site does not begin. Such huge amounts are spent here that all previous savings go down the drain.
    And to bring down Bronco is so easy that any illiterate peasant with MANPADS to cope with this.
    1. Wolga
      
      0
      
      14 February 2020 14: 56
      
      Not a literate peasant - he DOES NOT have MANPADS, he does not know how to use it ... And it is not easy to shoot down Bronco. As if it would not be desirable. Look, for the sake of interest, the statistics or something ... Or there will be shouts about Shilka, and S-300. They do not have such a technique, and if there is, then other more advanced means of destruction will knock it out before the Bronco enter the battle. Again "warm" and "soft" are heaped together ... Aircraft of the Tucano class, as mentioned earlier, are intended for counter-partisan actions, with all the ensuing tasks. To confuse them with machines of the end of the era of piston aircraft is nonsense. These machines have a design level of the 21st century with all materials and technologies, the same is true for the means of countering MANPADS. It is naive to believe that they will not be equipped with "heat traps" from MANPADS ...
      1. voyaka uh
        
        +1
        
        14 February 2020 18: 41
        
        "The same is true for the means of countering MANPADS. It is naive to believe that they will not be equipped with" heat traps "from MANPADS" ///
        ---
        Heat traps no longer work. In GOS missiles put a video camera.
        Countermeasures like a laser cannot be placed on such a small plane. These attack aircraft are completely defenseless against any anti-aircraft missiles.
        
        Wolga
        
        0
        
        15 February 2020 01: 00
        
        Not - ANY anti-aircraft missiles, but from the most modern, which means - more expensive. If you follow your logic, then no helicopter can counteract MANPADS - but they are released and they fly ... You are well aware that for every tricky nut ...
        
        voyaka uh
        
        +1
        
        15 February 2020 02: 30
        
        To large military transport helicopters (and aircraft)
        just began to put laser counteraction systems
        small anti-aircraft missiles. These systems are massive. Only
        a large platform pulls them.
        And without them ... Syria is an example. Helicopters shoot down effortlessly.
        You can’t attach a defense system to a small attack aircraft.
        You can’t even put a radar on them. Only in drone version
        we can talk about a screw machine.
        
        Tuzik
        
        0
        
        16 February 2020 14: 12
        
        And how much does such a system weigh?
        
        voyaka uh
        
        +1
        
        16 February 2020 14: 21
        
        Come on, here it is, the Israeli Flight Guard, under the passenger liner:
        
        Even the F-16 could hardly pull such a thing
        
        Tuzik
        
        +1
        
        16 February 2020 14: 35
        
        Dimensional contraption, but the weight may be small. Fighters think it is not needed. Spoil the hell out of all the aerodynamics
Host Tavern

+1

13 February 2020 12: 02

The US Air Force decided to abandon the purchase of 300 light attack aircraft with propellers.

So let the patrols be carried out on "gyro scooters".
1. Super
  
  0
  
  13 February 2020 13: 59
  
  Let them go on trampolines. Correctly Rogozin said.
Super

0

13 February 2020 13: 58

It’s clear that it’s useless. And by the way, nobody pays attention — unlike other countries in Russia, it’s the Air-Space-forces and not just the Air Force. That is, these same Americans are already behind in development.
Mikhail3

0

13 February 2020 14: 32

I hope that the Americans will not experience doubts about the decision made. Refused and refused, very good.
VicktorVR

0

13 February 2020 14: 42

Dusty Fields Field :)
Real Vugluskr

+1

13 February 2020 16: 33

Yes, let them finally file ORCA, like in C&C!
1. Alexey RA
  
  +1
  
  13 February 2020 17: 27
  Quote: Real Vugluskr
  Yes, let them finally file ORCA, like in C&C!
  
  And I even know how they will respond to such a move with us.
  Kirov reporting! ©
2. PSih2097
  
  0
  
  13 February 2020 18: 21
  Quote: Real Vugluskr
  Yes, let them finally file ORCA, like in C&C!
  
  no, it’s not necessary, but then they will somehow get to it (the drawings are good on the Internet) ...
  1. Alexey RA
    
    +1
    
    13 February 2020 19: 09
    
    Quote: PSih2097
    no, it’s not necessary, but then they will somehow get to it (the drawings are good on the Internet) ...
    
    Isn’t it already?
    1. PSih2097
      
      0
      
      13 February 2020 19: 55
      
      Quote: Alexey RA
      Isn’t it already?
      
      it's about us, not about the USE ... there for similar cases they can send to the tower ... That's the problem ...
lvov_aleksey

0

13 February 2020 23: 51

that again the "stars and stripes" panties are trying to prove something
Old26

+2

14 February 2020 17: 58

The US Air Force decided to abandon the purchase of 300 light attack aircraft with propellers. This is explained by the fact that the Pentagon’s long-term strategy is increasingly shifting toward the confrontation of the “great power” with “countries close to itself”, such as Russia and China. At the same time, these aircraft were intended to fight terrorism. And against Russia, as stated, such aircraft are useless.

Is terrorism anymore? And the Americans will not conduct military operations against the enemy leading a guerrilla war? All their lives, such attack aircraft were designated as COIN / COIN, which stands for Counter insurgency - counterinsurgency.

It was planned to use the new low-cost attack aircraft in cases where the risk of using the F-35 would not be justified. In particular, due to the low speed, but the long flight, it was expected that the new aircraft would be ideal for patrolling the area during the fight against militants.

Quite right. And such planes would have been by no means superfluous in both Chechen wars, when it was necessary to drive small groups on "green"

But in 2018, a new priority goal was identified in Washington - the confrontation of the armed forces of the Russian Federation and China. With the new approach, the Pentagon realized that the attack aircraft would not bring much benefit. Instead, the command of special operations will acquire 75 unnamed model aircraft.

Well, the Americans are unlikely to refuse to "dictate their will" to everyone. There will be a lot of local conflicts in which they participated and will participate. And not all of them will benefit from the F-35 ...

Quote: The same Lech
Against the Shells, these attack aircraft are like ducks and geese ... the stump is clear that our Willows will flip them into the air.
It remains to apply them only against the Taliban or somewhere in the places of aboriginal residence without air defense equipment.

And will each platoon be covered with "Shells" or "Verboi"? In addition, such attack aircraft, approaching a target at low altitude, will be a very difficult target. Firstly, it is very difficult to hear it, secondly, the minimum range of destruction of the same "Verboy" is 1 m. If not a steppe or a desert, then such an attack aircraft has a lot of chances to approach unnoticed. And sometimes it is cheaper to use it than an F-2 class plane or our SU-500/35/30

Quote: The same LYOKHA
Who knows .. what. If the development of hypersound and laser systems goes by leaps and bounds then these types of weapons will be useless.

Of course of course. As soon as they develop by leaps and bounds, these systems will be useless. This already happened when they said that aviation was useless, and cannon weapons on airplanes were useless. And such light attack aircraft will be useless. But no. They have been using them for more than half a century and will continue to be used. Because there will be no hypersonic MANPADS in every platoon or squad, just as there will be no lasers in the same platoon or squad to defeat such targets ...

Quote: The same LYOKHA
A-50 and A-100 will also be vulnerable to attack ... glow in the air like Christmas trees for weapons ...

Well, and if his radar sees a ground target in 40-50 km, then what will you hit him with? After all, such attack aircraft are needed when a counter-guerrilla war is already underway, or when those attack aircraft that are now in the army and are unlikely to have a difficult air defense zone will be knocked out ...
Although, of course, it would be worthwhile to think about creating an AWACS aircraft of the "Hawaiian" or "Gulf Stream" type. Something lightweight, relatively cheap. And not only AWACS aircraft should be deployed on such "small" vehicles, but also reconnaissance vehicles ...

Quote: The same LYOKHA
So it is claimed that the F-22 is invisible to our radars with an EPR of 0.000 ... there from a certain date. smile ... or something.

Damn, how much can this chewing gum about invisibility chew ???? Well it doesn’t INVISIBLE aircraft. Airplanes created using STELS technology - subtle. No, the same thing is repeated every time ....

Quote: Free Wind
During the Vietnam War, piston planes with propellers were used quite successfully, there were more than jet ones, their operation was cheaper than helicopters, the ceiling was several times higher ,,,,, The range was many times greater, in terms of cruising and maximum speed they surpass any helicopter. Since now they are trying to make the majority of designs from composites, its visibility is not high. And the thermal signature of such aircraft is much lower than that of turntables

I completely agree with you, Alexander. We sometimes treat all such news from the "Adversary" from the standpoint of "giggle-hahonki", dismissively. But after all, a war is not only battles of aircraft with anti-aircraft weapons, an exchange of nuclear strikes and so on. Even after an exchange of nuclear strikes, the war may not end and go on for years. And it is not a fact that only Russia or China will always be the enemy.
At one time in the Sukhoi Design Bureau there was a unit that was engaged in research on aircraft, more precisely, on loan-day attack aircraft. A few years ago, the son of the head of this division posted on his own website computer drawings of such machines that were intended to be created in the post-nuclear era. When it was not possible to create the same SU-25 attack aircraft, but there would be spare parts and fragments of the fuselage, wings. It is clear that all this is somewhat exaggerated, but nevertheless it is worth reading this material.
Vladimirsky

0

14 February 2020 20: 07

So it seems like we shoot down rockets without problems? And then the PROPELLER ...
Voltsky

0

14 February 2020 20: 26

like an attack aircraft, implies air supremacy and an attack on the Papuans
Klingon

-1

24 February 2020 13: 21

in flight, these Toucans slightly resemble the German Stuck U-87.
- striped toucans refused, but I'm almost sure that I know who wants to buy them