Comments by "n" (@user-pq4by2rq9y) on "The Future Of Close Air Support - Light Attack Aircraft" video.

Thedwarvenpower the a-29 also have countermeasures.
4
Not more than not having it in the air though.
3
Victor though our C-390 would not be as suited for the gunship role
3
Know what i want? A small turboprop gunship to take the role of the Apache. I don’t see it happening but a fixed wing turboprop would make it a so much less complex and more dependable aircraft in every way.
2
A higher payload wouldn’t hurt anyway
1
@christophercook723 actually, these are supposed to work well against heatseekers, since low heat signature and flares
1
@JohnnyKaw11B It can fire the same bombs than the a-10, cover a much larger area and you can operate more aircraft for the same amount of money. Some would say this makes it more effective, similar to the overwhelming numbers Sherman tactics in WWII. The real question is if it will remain effective in the future.
1
@JohnnyKaw11B It can loiter for longer, cruise speed is very comparable, while it carries less ordnance, it can be employed in large numbers to cover more area and are substantially easier to maintain.
1
@JohnnyKaw11B It can fly up to 7 hours on external fuel tanks. It flies regularly from improvised airstrips, so "airfield space" isn't a problem. It can be rearmed and refueled under 15 minutes. It has much lower stall speed. That for a fraction of the operational cost of the a-10. For the record, yeah the a-10 can fly faster but so can any other jet, while its gun is special, it is also absurdly expensive. Yeah it is built like a tank, but tanks aren't known for flying. And do you really think you are in place to call someone else a fanboy?
1
Basically, when you need planes in the sky instead of overwhelming firepower, this is your guy.
1
It’s not just cost, light attack aircraft are a logistical wonder to support a army, you can have more planes where it’s needed. I really like the heavy/light duty mentality between the A-10 and light attack aircraft.
1