[General Battuta]

How about we get some really low-maintenance, high-loiter-time ground support and observation aircraft? Possibly aircraft without jet engines? Crazy as it might sound, these things (like the old Bronco) would probably be more useful for some components of today's warfare than any number of high-tech jets.

[StarSlayer]

Somebody say Skyraider?  Though to be honest, I'd wager a big honking UAV would probably fit the bill.

[NGTM-1R]

Good ol' Spad...

[Liberator]

That damn plane got the first gun kill vs a MiG-17 in Vietnam if I remember correctly.

[Kosh]

really low-maintenance, high-loiter-time ground support and observation aircraft?

Predator and Reaper planes fit that bill probably better than anything else.

[Thaeris]

If you want a manned plane you might check these guys out:

http://www.stavatti.com/INDEX.html

If you've got a copy of X-Plane 9 you might even try out how the aircraft is intended to feel in real life:

http://www.stavatti.com/MACHETE_XPLANE.html

I would personally advocate the Rutan ARES, though. At the time of its testing, the aircraft was estimated to cost only about 1 million USD per production unit. One F-16 or 20 'O these? 

-Thaeris

[Flipside]

MMmmmm Propellers....

There's something about propellers that is just.... 'Chocs away! Tally Ho!' and all I love them

[Liberator]

Yeah, but you'd never get Jet Jockies to load up in a prop driven plane, no matter how good it is.

[Janos]

How about we get some really low-maintenance, high-loiter-time ground support and observation aircraft? Possibly aircraft without jet engines? Crazy as it might sound, these things (like the old Bronco) would probably be more useful for some components of today's warfare than any number of high-tech jets.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embraer_EMB_314_Super_Tucano

http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=3989159

The U.S. Navy's new Irregular Warfare office has been looking at an agile Brazilian observation and ground-attack turboprop to provide an "organic" close air support aircraft for special operations forces.

Under the classified "Imminent Fury" program, the Navy has already leased, tested and armed at least one Embraer EMB-314 Super Tucano, according to Capt. Mark Mullins, a naval special warfare officer serving as the deputy director of the Navy Irregular Warfare Office at the Pentagon]

Plus the aforementioned UAVs, also.

Yeah, but you'd never get Jet Jockies to load up in a prop driven plane, no matter how good it is.

AF fighter pilots have been one of the reasons why US suddenly faces huge difficulties.

"WE REALLY NEED THIS FLYING RAILGUN. SRSLY GUYS, THEY ONLY COST 3 BILLION EACH."
"No you don't get that seriously"
"WE'RE SCRAPPING EEEEVERYTHING also CAP sucks LOOK I HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO PLANES WHY DO YOU DENY US FLYING RAILGUNS"
"No you're not getting flying railguns, shut up."
"YOU HAVE DESTROYED OUR AIR DEFENCE"

[Colonol Dekker]

Props = You'd never get a jet in the Red Bull Air race....

[TrashMan]

How about we get some really low-maintenance, high-loiter-time ground support and observation aircraft? Possibly aircraft without jet engines? Crazy as it might sound, these things (like the old Bronco) would probably be more useful for some components of today's warfare than any number of high-tech jets.

You mean something like this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_AC-130 ?

[General Battuta]

No. The AC-130 is a gunship, a heavy, valuable asset. I'm thinking more like the Bronco (as cited in the passage you quoted.)

That said, a lot more AC-130s would be great too.

[Colonol Dekker]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawker_Typhoon

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiat_G.55

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A-20_Havoc <<this ones a bit big

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westland_Whirlwind_(fighter) <<this ones ugly

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F7F_Tigercat << So's this one....


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supermarine_Spitfire << The King of em all...

[StarSlayer]

Your list is flawed

Achtung Jabos!

[Janos]

Your list is flawed

Achtung Jabos!

Bombers: "We need a fighter capable of escorting our bombers"
Fighters: "Have we got a tool for you! The P-47!"
B: "what this does not work at all as we wanted this machine sucks at what we need it to excel in it cannot even escort anything to germany what the **** is this ****"
F: "It's a great plane! we want it!"
Politicians: "**** you fighters you get the P-51."
F: "bwaaaaaa"
*P-51 fulfills the mission, becomes idolized, P-47 works in other roles*

[Thaeris]

That just makes me want to go and watch the P-47 guncam footage I downloaded from Google...

-Thaeris

[Eishtmo]

How about we get some really low-maintenance, high-loiter-time ground support and observation aircraft? Possibly aircraft without jet engines? Crazy as it might sound, these things (like the old Bronco) would probably be more useful for some components of today's warfare than any number of high-tech jets.

But that's not flashy and high tech!  Air Force can't have that.

AND IF THEY CAN'T HAVE IT, NEITHER CAN ANYONE ELSE!




Except the Marines.  Those guys are scary.

[Ally Cat]

Bombers: "We need a fighter capable of escorting our bombers"
Fighters: "Have we got a tool for you! The P-47!"
B: "what this does not work at all as we wanted this machine sucks at what we need it to excel in it cannot even escort anything to germany what the **** is this ****"
F: "It's a great plane! we want it!"
Politicians: "**** you fighters you get the P-51."
F: "bwaaaaaa"
*P-51 fulfills the mission, becomes idolized, P-47 works in other roles*

This is, of course, completely wrong. The P-47 was the best piston-engine fighter of the war above 20,000 feet and hence one of the best bomber escorts. It was also capable of escort to Germany once the correct drop tanks were fitted; the terrible mistake the prewar Army Air Corp made was actually forbidding their development in a bout of bomber-mania.

[Nuclear1]

If the Air Force doesn't want it, we'll be happy to give to the Marines. They'll just crash it anyway.

[colecampbell666]

So what type of pilot are you training as Nuclear? Fighter? Chopper?