Why does no other country operate the A-10?

[B.Smitty]

True those systems are great for countries that can afford them, but for countries in Latin America and Africa a Super Tucano (A modern A-1) is really all you need.

You can buy two Shadows for the price of one Super Tucano.

And you can undoubtedly operate both of them for less than the one Super Tucano.

Or you can buy a truckload of Dragon Eyes for the price of a Super Tucano.

And Dragon Eye doesn't even require a trained pilot - saving on training costs.

 

[LancerMc]

Though look how many the USAF is going through right now. We have lost a considerable amount of these aircraft and were the ones that developed them. I would think a country that has no experience working with UAV's would lose many more then the USAF. I still believe a manned aircraft is a better situation then a UAV for those airforces.

 

[B.Smitty]

True, but the situation is improving.

And you can lose Dragon Eye's by the dozen and still come out ahead of a Super Tucano, price-wise.

 

[hybrid]

This may've been true during the Vietnam War, when they didn't have FLIR pods and high-res SAR, but nowadays low and slow is not really necessary.

For COIN work these days, rather than large numbers of turboprop trainers, seems to me the bulk should be comprised of UAVs of various flavors.

RQ-8B Shadows only run around $2.7 million each.

Dragon Eye is sub-$100k per system (two UAVs).

These will give you greater sensor coverage at a far lower life-cycle cost.

Add to this a smaller number of armed aircraft to perform the "Killer" part of the "Hunter-Killer" team, and you're done.

My preference here would be to arm maritime patrol aircraft with LGBs and other small PGMs, rather than turboprop trainers, but that's just me.

I'm gonna assume you meant the RQ-7 as the RQ-8 is a remote helo uav called the Fire Scout But you're thinking about the wrong situation, namely not just loiter time but the range involved. An RQ-7 only has a range of approximately 50-125 km dependent on the number of ground stations involved whereas a Super Tucano has a combat range well in excess of 1500km this means it can rapidly respond to different areas in the range of its loiter time. That alone is worth its 10+ million USD cost over a pair of Shadows. Sometimes you just need that versatility.

 

[qwerty223]

IMO,
Strong NATO members have the ability to build their own, weak ones will rather to let the strong ones to do the job than to equip something that they seldom use.

As for 3rd world country's, few of the "friendlies" & "allies" (referring to US) do not need or not "suitable" to have it. While others are not that "friendly"(also referring to US) hence not allowed to have it or either not affordable or even go for Russian (USSR) cheap nice stuff such as the SU-25s, instead.

 

[B.Smitty]

I'm gonna assume you meant the RQ-7 as the RQ-8 is a remote helo uav called the Fire Scout But you're thinking about the wrong situation, namely not just loiter time but the range involved. An RQ-7 only has a range of approximately 50-125 km dependent on the number of ground stations involved whereas a Super Tucano has a combat range well in excess of 1500km this means it can rapidly respond to different areas in the range of its loiter time. That alone is worth its 10+ million USD cost over a pair of Shadows. Sometimes you just need that versatility.

Oops. Yes RQ-7B.

A complete RQ-7B system with four UAVs and two ground stations costs around as much as one Super Tucano (~$10 mil).

Four UAVs can put a lot more sensor-hours airborne than a single turboprop trainer.

Of course, it's really not an either/or question. Turbo trainers, UAVs and jets can be complementary.

 

[Todjaeger]

Oops. Yes RQ-7B.

A complete RQ-7B system with four UAVs and two ground stations costs around as much as one Super Tucano (~$10 mil).

Four UAVs can put a lot more sensor-hours airborne than a single turboprop trainer.

Of course, it's really not an either/or question. Turbo trainers, UAVs and jets can be complementary.

Check out the CAS Turboprop thread
http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=5527

It has some discussion on CAS/COIN operations. At present, UAVs can't replace CAS/COIN aircraft like the A-10. UAVs are great C4ISR support assets, but they are with few exceptions, not combat capable. CAS aircraft in addition to the sensor packages (which depend on tech of operators) can mount a range of guns and ordnance which is the distinction between recon and attack assets.

Now if you meant UAV vs. light observation aircraft then I would agree with you, as long as the operating force has the maintenance skills needed to perform upkeep on the UAV. I'm not sure that many of the nations in need of CAS/COIN aircraft in South America, Africa or Southeast Asia have the requisite technical base.

-Cheers

 

[B.Smitty]

Check out the CAS Turboprop thread
http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=5527

It has some discussion on CAS/COIN operations. At present, UAVs can't replace CAS/COIN aircraft like the A-10. UAVs are great C4ISR support assets, but they are with few exceptions, not combat capable. CAS aircraft in addition to the sensor packages (which depend on tech of operators) can mount a range of guns and ordnance which is the distinction between recon and attack assets.

Now if you meant UAV vs. light observation aircraft then I would agree with you, as long as the operating force has the maintenance skills needed to perform upkeep on the UAV. I'm not sure that many of the nations in need of CAS/COIN aircraft in South America, Africa or Southeast Asia have the requisite technical base.

-Cheers

They don't have the maintenance skills to perform upkeep on a tiny UAV, but do on a manned aircraft?

Maybe that's true if you strip the turboprop of advanced electronics (like the SAFIRE on Super Tucano), but otherwise, I disagree.

In Iraq, there are very few airstrikes these days. The vast majority of sorties are recon/surveillance. It's just much harder to find targets than it is to kill them.

And as i've said before, i think manned aircraft and UAVs are complementary. In an ideal world you'd have a hi-lo mix with a small number of manned aircraft and a large number of UAVs.

Though I still favor arming a larger MPA style aircraft with PGMs over flying turboprop trainers. They can just carry larger loads, stay aloft much longer, and can have better ISR suites.

You won't see a 1500km range on a Super Tucano once you slap a couple Mk 82 class weapons on it.

Plus, most non-land locked nations will be buying MPAs anyway. Though I supposed if they have any fighter aircraft, they'll probably have a turboprop trainer fleet too.

 

[Todjaeger]

They don't have the maintenance skills to perform upkeep on a tiny UAV, but do on a manned aircraft?

Maybe that's true if you strip the turboprop of advanced electronics (like the SAFIRE on Super Tucano), but otherwise, I disagree.

In Iraq, there are very few airstrikes these days. The vast majority of sorties are recon/surveillance. It's just much harder to find targets than it is to kill them.

And as i've said before, i think manned aircraft and UAVs are complementary. In an ideal world you'd have a hi-lo mix with a small number of manned aircraft and a large number of UAVs.

Though I still favor arming a larger MPA style aircraft with PGMs over flying turboprop trainers. They can just carry larger loads, stay aloft much longer, and can have better ISR suites.

You won't see a 1500km range on a Super Tucano once you slap a couple Mk 82 class weapons on it.

Plus, most non-land locked nations will be buying MPAs anyway. Though I supposed if they have any fighter aircraft, they'll probably have a turboprop trainer fleet too.

I would say yes, turboprops without advanced electronics are easier to maintain than UAVs, small or large. Further, there are a number of countries that currently are conducting counter-insurgency operations that do not have a large technical support base. Mexico comes to mind, as does Colombia, the Phillippines, Thailand...

While it would be nice for an air force to have a mix of manned & unmanned aircraft, for many of the Third World nations, and even Second World, there isn't the needed combination of money, personnel, and technical support.

For a situation like the US is facing in Iraq then a UAV which is performing reconaissance or intelligence gather would be the way to go. Now if the situation is like that of Colombia, the air asset would not just be used to locate the enemy, but also carry out airstrikes. For that bombs might be used, but I suspect that FFAR and gun pods would make more sense if the target is FARC or an enemy of similar nature. A Mk-82 is great if you need something big taken down, but that isn't usually the case when fighting an insurgency.

-Cheers