Forum: Air Power

Just some questions that would be interesting to think about. This project might certainly be labeled, yet another project we have no money for... but it is intesting. Easy for me to think of it because I won't be the one being shot at by trashfire and worse. Laughing

Info on the ground attack version of our current trainer....

http://www.raytheonaircraft.com/governm ... spec.shtml

*Could this be useful in Iraq for loitering around known trouble spots?
*It would obviously be cheap to operate but would also be close to the same vulernerability as a helicopter
*Could deploy more of these per dollar than big combat jets where this would be "good enough" for some duties. Has a smaller logistics footprint.
*Would be netcentric to work hand in hand with bigger shooter aircraft, AC-130, Apache, A-10, etc etc and of course UCAVs and JTACs.
*Would need to be night op-NVG compatable.
*Would still need crusty older pilots sprinkled within the Squadron just like any other weapon system so it is lead in the right way. Laughing

Oh yeah and give some of our older maintainers lighter duty out in the hot sun. Laughing

F-16.net Sponsor

Last edited by locum on Apr 05, 2007 - 03:07 PM; edited 2 times in total

Elp, your Raytheon-link gives Error 404, here is another link with photos and info about the new generation AT-6 Texan II.

http://www.fuerzasmildom.com/articles_c ... iculoID=54

The 3rd photo shows an AT-6 with hardpoints and weaponry, is the AT-6 allready developed?

1.*Could this be useful Overthere for loitering around trouble spots?
Yes, the AT-6 has an estimated endurance of 6.5 hours, for comparison: the AH-64 has an endurance of 2.5 - 2.75 hours. The AT-6 will also spend less maintenance time on the ground. Thus, the AT-6 could act as an Light Attack & Recon Aircraft like the OV-10 Bronco in Nam. There are over 1.000 UAVs in Iraq, there IR/EO sensors are providing a 'view thru a soda straw'. A 2-seat LARA, equipped with for example an AAQ-22 Safir or the AH-64s Arrowhead-IR/EO turret, 4 Mk1 Eyeballs and binoculars linked with the ground troops via VHF/UHF and a RemotelyOperatedVideoEnhancedReceiver or Tadiran V-RAMBO video-datalink and armed with :Hellfires, Hydra 70s, (mini)gun-pods, SmallDiameterBombs etc. could be an organic direct fire support weapon at batallion level. And the ROVER and V-RAMBO will provide real-time imagery to ground troops respectively at a laptop or 'wrist'-top.

2.* Vulnerability: the AT-6 will normally cruise with the same speed as the AH-64 & Cobra, if needed it can cruise faster than those helicopters, thus decreasing vulnerabilty. The AT-6 has one 1.100 hp or preferably an 1.600 hp turboprop, the Apache has two 1.890 hp engines with BlackHole exhausts. Because of this I think that the Apache has a bigger IR signature than the AT-6. Rotary-wings generally are more vulnerable than fixed-wing aircraft. Helicopters have a vulnerable rotorhub, which cannot be armored, they also have a vulnerable tailrotor with associated shaft, running through the tailboom
The AT-6 will operate in 2 altitude bands: at 100ft / 30m. or lower, or in case there are MANPADS around: above 10.000 ft/ 3.050 m. Above 10.000 ft, the AT-6 has better performance than the AH-64.
And do not forget armor and a rugged airframe like the Stuka, Shturmovik Il-2 and P-47 Thunderbolt had.

3.* the AT-6 will cost approx USD 5-6 million a copy, much cheaper than vulnerable teenfighters which are too fast to accurately aim their weapons. At present, the slow Hog - LITENING combo is the ground forces' CAS favorit, they dislike fast teenfighters and Harriers because of their inaccurate ordnance delivery, see http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/200 ... /index.php Operating cost per hour will also be much cheaper than teenfighters.

4.* Network Centric Warfare, The ROVER and V-RAMBO video datalink can fuse data into a 3-D image of the battlefield. But...do not get over-excited, Syria and Iran succeeded in intercepting NCW data transmissions of the IDF during the second Lebanon war and they provided Hezbollah with critical tactical information, so it can also be used against you.
It takes several weeks to set up a NCW network, NCW is not a plug-and-play affair. In a symmetric war, NCW is very useful, but how about an a-symmetric war?: at best a blurred frontline or no frontline at all, with different and very mobile groups of insurgents.

5.* night vision, see above no. 1

6.* crusty older pilots. a fine mix of experienced 'Grannies' and young 'Snappers'. I prefer that the AT-6 crews get some training with the US Army and/or USMC, so they can anticipate better at ground force manoeuvers.

In The Dominican Republic, the EMB-314 Super Tucano replaced the AT-37 Dragonfly. In Columbia, 25 SuperTucanos are replacing the Bronco, so the AT-6 could be a suitable replacement for the good ole Dragonfly.
More info about the Super Tucano, which is similar to the AT-6: http://www.airforce-technology.com/proj ... er_tucano/

Good looking aircraft..I like it

locum wrote:

3.* the AT-6 will cost approx USD 5-6 million a copy, much cheaper than vulnerable teenfighters which are too fast to accurately aim their weapons. At present, the slow Hog - LITENING combo is the ground forces' CAS favorit, they dislike fast teenfighters and Harriers because of their inaccurate ordnance delivery, see http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/200 ... /index.php Operating cost per hour will also be much cheaper than teenfighters.

Off topic... Have to be careful with that. A "teen" fighter can lase with the newer pods from 30, 35 and 40k feet. Wink

Which contempt of engages most ground threats anyway. Accuracy is based on not only the weapon but who is using it. So Sgt whatshisname probably had a bad run of support. If it is a 911 call just about everything else gets there faster than an A-10. There has been much more "accurate" support than inaccurate from a conventional fast mover/fighter. USAF and USMC ground forward air controllers (JTACs) are about the best there is. I would be real curious given the Army today, how many of them can call in a grid. which... also calling in CAS isn't just calling in a grid. that is why we have skilled JTAC's. JDAM is used as much as GBU-12 for example so "accuracy" is whatever was called in. A-10 is great if it is part of a preplanned op and available, however I would hate to wait on one. The Precision Engagement ( P.E. ) package is just now starting to reach the field vice some of the ad hoc LITENING ad ons put on the A-10. One downer of putting a LITENING on the jet is that like the jammer pod, it takes up a weapon station. Be nice to put LITENING on the centerline except the gun gas would ruin it. Of course in hot/high A-10s can't go all that high and add mountains like Afghanistan or similar and a MANPAD could be real mean. Good jet though, just us it with in it's limits.

I really like the idea of an AT-6II used for extra ground support duties but new MANPADS and the fact there are still some Soviet era 23mm hanging around Shocked

might take the fun out of the adventure. I would like to see more Apaches available. Yes there are those threats I mentioned but still a good system.

Army needs to have more low tech artillery available. For a 911 call you can't beat having rounds coming down on the bad guy in a lot shorter time than any air support. Not as a replacement of anything, but more mobile artillery would be useful. Where terrain permits... going on a bug hunt in a town? Bring a long a mobile 105 to stay within support range. I'm not interested in collateral, only saving G.I.s lives.

-- 'A teenfighter can lase with the new pods from 30 - 40k ft': True, but a lot of targets Overthere are strafed with aircraft guns and unguided rockets like the Hydra 70 and CRV-7 are used a lot too. Elp, during the Kosovo-campaign in 1999, fighterpilots experienced that not all targets can be attacked from safe distance/ altitude. Sometimes they had to go in low and dirty and don not forget that a 500lbs bomb released from 40,000 ft / 12.240 m has a different kinetic impact upon target then a bomb released from say 5,000 ft / 1.500 m. For comparison: a 1,000lbs / 454 kg bomb released at 500ft /150 m. may bounce and at best cause a crater; 12ft / 3,6 m. wide and 3ft / 0,9 m. deep. The same bomb released from above 2,000 ft / 610 m. would have time to reach terminal velocity and could cause a 65ft / 20m wide and 20ft / 6,1 m deep crater (with a delayed action fuse)

-- True, ground troops (under fire) can give wrong target coordinates, as they work in chaotic and (very) stressfull circumstances.

-- Heee Hooo, Heee Hooo, Oooh 'Air Force Uppercreature' please give us lots of "HighTech" and "HighSpeed", yeah a fetish can be exciting, but these fetishes are not useful in CAS ops.
As you can read in the defenseindustrydaily.com link, planes like the Harrier, F-15/ 16/ 18 are TOO awesome, TOO fast. That ugly and slow Warthog is regarded by American and British CAS customers as the most ideal weapon, not the ideal!. The A-10 plays an important role in the high end of the CAS mission, lighter planes like the Brazilian Super Tucano and AT/ OT-6 II can play an important role in the lower end of the CAS mission. Although these aircraft are not as fast as teenfighters for a '911 call', they compensate this with their longer loitering time.
Not only soldiers Overthere, but also Vietnam-veterans liked slow-and-low mudmovers like the A-1 Skyraider.
Please, take a look at these links: http://www.geocities.com/usarmyaviationdigest/mas.htm Charles "Chuck" Myers tells about his combat experiences.
Second link: http://www.combatreform2.com/killerbees3/htm

Elp wrote 'I'm not interested in collateral damage, only saving GIs lives.' Uuuuuuhhh, Uuuuhhhh (J.D. Hog from the Dukes of Hazzard- reaction). Collateral damage will provide your opponent with Precision Guided Propaganda, assisted by the Al-Jazeera and CNN news circus. It will also provide the insurgent with new recrutes. Example: 2003, Fallujah; Fallujah was during the Saddam-era not a Ba'ath-party stronghold. In 2003 (June/ July/ August?) riots broke out, 15 civilians got killed by US troops. After this tragedy, Fallujah turned into a stronghold of the Sunni resistence.

The 4 main principles of Counter-Insurgery (COIN) warfare are:
1. Understand your adversary
2. Build State Capacity and presence
3. Control the population
4. Keep the Use of Force to a Minimum

In a symmetric war like Gulf War I in 1991, things are 'quite simple', the enemy wear uniforms etc., if you detect and ID your adversary, aim and shoot.
In a small war, things are not that simple, the adversary does not wear a uniform, mostly they are not organised like a regular army. So if you want to use violence, you have to use your IQ/ training/ experience/ discipline much more than in a symmetric war, or maybe you shoot yourself in your own foot.
If you want some deep insight into COIN, go to http://www.rand.org/pubs/monograph/2006/RAND_MG509.pdf

Elp wrote 'army needs to have more low tech artillery available': Arti 'flies' 24h/ 7 days, they can send in rounds 20 seconds after your request. When you are fighting Taliban in the country side at 1,500 m / 5,000 ft - 2.000 m / 6,560ft away from you, Yes, send those unguided 155 mm grenades or 81mm / 120mm mortarbombs in asap. But when you are at close quarters and/ or in built-up area, then we have a different story. Arti is not accurate enough; result: collateral damage, fracticide ('friendly fire') = counter-productive.
This can be solved by giving them precision guidance with GPS and/ or laser like the Excalibur 155 mm round or the IAI Fireball 120 mm mortar round, this is not a be it all end all solution: they can go astray by electronic and human malfunction.

Elp wrote 'bring along a mobile 105 to stay within support range'. Mwa, Mwa, Mwa, many 'Miss Piggy kisses to you Elp. 1989, Ops Just Cause, Panama: A fool proposed to sent in the Airborne fellas with just Jeeps armed with 50 cal. (12,7 mm) or M-60 machineguns. Sack that B@st*rd! Luckily they went in with M551 Sheridan light tanks armed with a 152 mm gun. HE-rounds made man-sized holes in reinforced concrete walls. Are you ambushed?: fire a canister, a 'shotgun'round containing over 1,000 tungsten pellets will clean up. Dismounted groups of insurgents/ infantry, fire a beehive-round, this round contains thousands of tungsten flechettes (darts), if it explodes it make a sound like a Bzzzzzee hive.
But the Sheridan does not excist anymore and no money for the XM-8 Bedford light tank. AAI Corp. has signed a license agreement with Hagglunds and Patria Oy from Sweden and Finland for the breech loaded twin-barrel 120mm Advanced Mortar System (AMOS).
AMOS is housed in an armored turret which can be put on a Bradley/ LAV or M-113, max. fire rate is 26 rounds per minute, maximum range = 10 km/ 6.2 statute miles, some precision guided rounds can reach 16 km / 10 st. miles. The AMOS can be used in direct- as well as indirect fire support.

Hey super-genius, I never said traditional arty was a total solution. Flush out your headgear.

The difference between Kosovo and today is like the stone age in air warfare. NCW was more theory than fact where UAVs were not very helpful at finding stuff ("Roof with the red tiles? Every damn house in this down has roofs with red tiles" Laughing

Like trying to do ISR by looking through a straw )

You also need to look at what the top sellers are in CAS currently. GBU-38 (JDAM) and GBU-12 (LGB) and then go down for strafing if you are empty of PGMs and they still need support. The theory that the fast movers are somehow less accurate isn't quite true.

The problem with CAS over there is the dipicable act of telling troops over the net: "There are other troops in contact, you are number 3 on the request list.". There is NO excuse for that seeing as we have a ton of pilots and planes back in the U.S. THAT if anything is where CAS is coming up short by some PowerPoint warrior trying to save GD money. I can save money in about 2 seconds taking every 3rd person in an HQ and send them to the theater or have them retrain intos something else that brings something to the fight. Eliminating the position of Secretary of the Air Force would would be a big help too. That is a function that eats up cash and doesn't bring anything to the fight. We need more air power in the "forgotten" war which is Afghanistan. We have tons of airframes yet we had to scrape the bottom of the barrel and ask an Allie who would rather not be going to Afcrapistan ( Germany ) to cough up a package of Tornado strikers and send them.

Re: collateral damage. I believe in limiting it. However if it is you being shot to pieces, all bets are off. A position will be reduced ( read destroyed ) if that brings an end to the fight. Fire support saves lives.... ours.

CAS can't fill the gap of fast 911 calls quick enough. Not every soldier can call in a 8 line grid, maybe 6, and when there is lead and RPGs flying everywhere that means something has to be done NOW. PGM arty can't solve every problem. However, telling a high school dropout that might be 19 or so to put some fire on that house or tree line now with his mortar still works and works well. DOD needs to look at funding more small traditional non-PGM arty solutions. These items save lives until CAS arrives.

locum wrote:

--

The 4 main principles of Counter-Insurgery (COIN) warfare are:
1. Understand your adversary
2. Build State Capacity and presence
3. Control the population
4. Keep the Use of Force to a Minimum
. .

This means absolutely nothing in Operation: Useless Dirt. Our DOD/Military has no concept of how to work 4th generation warfare. None. Our military talks a good game at the joke institutions called "war colleges", by pretending to like 3rd generation warfare leadership concepts, and then almost always resorts to a micromanaged 2nd generation warfare playbook. Don't expect this to change in the current culture.

I am not offering a strategic solution for Operation Useless Dirt. The only thing I am interested in is saving lives... the troops in the field. Anything else can go fish. Anyone thinking we are going to "win" in Afcrapistan or Iraq needs to step away from the crack pipe. The whole war is being run on borrowed money, we are breaking our military to perform an operation which gives NO national security benefit to the U.S. The "we are fighting an away game..." crap is good for a laugh on it's best day. 911 was caused by:
-Poor visa control of foreigners on our soil
-Poor domestic security in general ( name it )
-Having troops all over the M.E.
-Having a M.E. foreign policy that has to be signed off and approved by AIPAC.
Thats the short list. Using a second generation warfare solution for a 4th generation warfare problem is asking for trouble. Don't expect the PowerPoint warriors in the Pentagram to figure that one out. Or the bought and paid for congress. Or a clueless administration.

In Greece we have used our T6 Texan2 for CAP against low altitude low speed targets at the Olympic games of 2004. It is said that their performance was exceptional for this Kind of missions.
It will be very interesting what real pilots believe for the use of such systems against these kind of targets:
-Attack helicopter
-UAVs
-Antitank missions/ attack helis combined ops

Elp wrote "He super-genius, I never said that traditional arty was a total solution. Flush out your head gear"
Not Worthy

I am certainly not a super-genius, OK I have some patents on my name, but in real life I am a clutz. Just by looking at something, that thing will break down. No offense, but my gut feeling says that Elp-man is a clutz too. Thats were the similarity ends, in this thread we both broadcast at a totally different frequency. Elp, you never said that traditional arty was a total solution, it is just one of the tools in the bag.
Out Cheers

Last edited by locum on Apr 14, 2007 - 02:11 PM; edited 1 time in total

Hello Nomad, in 1989, The US Border Police tested The Ayres V-1A Vigilante (*) in the noctural border-surveillance roll. The experiment was highly successful, but there was no money available to buy it.

The AT-6 II against helicopters: helos can perform manoeuvers, which fixed-wing aircraft can't. 2 A-10s intercepted 2 British Lynx-helicopters in 1991 over Northern-Iraq. The Lynx pilots feared that the A-10s tried to shoot them down, so the Lynxes started evasive manoeuvers and so they outturned the Warthogs.

AT-6 vs. UAV: UAV operators look around with their belly IR/EO/radar turret, some UAVs like the Predator have an additional fixed camera in the nose. Cameras are limited in their field of view and they provide a 2-D image. UAV-producers haven't yet put microphones on these planes, so they don't hear ya coming. Serbian Gazelle helicopters armed with infantry weapons have shot down Predators, although Predators can fire the Stinger, which didn't help against an Iraqi Mig-25.

Combined attack helo/ fixed wing (anti tank) mission: The AH-64 has successfully cooperated with the A-10, acting as the anvil and the hammer. Examples of fixed-wing anti-tank aircraft: STUKA, Hawker Hurricane with 2x 40mm guns, P-47 Thunderbolt, Il-2 Shturmovik etc. The P-47 destroyed 9,000 locomotives and about 6,000 tanks and armoured vehicles, between March 1943 and August 1945. Only 0.7 % of the fighters of this type dispatched against the enemy were lost in combat.
(note; I am not a real pilot, in the past I only flew sail planes and a Socata Tobago, at my first flight I put my flatfeet on the wheelbrakes before touchdown, iiiiiieeeee)

(*) Dusting the insurgents with a cropduster.

The Ayers V-1A Vigilante is based on the Ayres TurboThrush, a cropdusting agricultural aircraft.
Cropdusters are: easy to fly/ maintain/ repair, cheap, simple, rugged, reliable and agile.
From the outset they are designed: to fly from rough short airstrips, to fly and manoeuver at very low altitudes --> 100-80ft / 30-24 m and if they crash, the airframe is rugged enough to keep it's crew alive.

Genesis:
US State Department operated the OV-10 Bronco as a drug eradicator, without success: the OV-10 was too vulnerable.
So they approached Ayres Corp. to make something better, they came up with the armored but unarmed TurboTrush Narcotics Eradication Delivery System.
State Dept. wanted an organic NEDS close support aircraft, so Ayres designed the Vigilante, essentially the NEDS plane but equipped for attack duties. Development was supported by the US Army Electro Optical Survivability Program and the State Department, so we don't have R&D costs and risks anymore because the damn beast allready flies.

The Vigilante is equipped with 1 PT6-65AG turbo-prop with 1,367 hp, driving a 5-bladed 9ft 3in / 2,82 m propeller.
The engine, 20 US gal/ 76 l fuselage tank and the 2-seat dual control cockpit are armored. If hits empty the wingtanks, the V-1A can still fly home on it's armored tank.
Navigation devices: King VLF Omega 660, ADF, VOR, GPS. We want to talk/ listen to other creatures via:UHF (air force), VHF FM/AM (ground troops), HF (long range).
Sensors: 4 eyeballs, binoculars; a wide range of electronic sensors have allready been tested like IR/LLLTV, IRlinescanner etc. along with videorecorders and datalinks.

Weapons: 11 hardpoints carrying a total of 4,200lbs / 1.905 kg like 250lb/ 500lb bombs, missiles, rockets and guns.

Size: length= 33 ft / 10,07 m, span= 44ft 5in / 13,55 m, wing area= 336 sq.ft / 31,26 sq.m.

Weights: empty= 4,900lbs / 2.223 kg, MTOW= 10,500lbs / 4.763 kg

STOL-performance: at low weights, TO run= 395ft / 120m; at MTOW, TO run=1,250ft / 381 m
landing run with reversed-propeller= 500ft / 153m.

How far do you go?: with full internal gas, range= 1,036 st. miles / 1.667 km.
How much time do we have to land some lethal headbutts on the Talibanditos?: 7 hours
OOeps, how about speed?: max. speed= 217 kts / 402 km/h / 250 mph
cruise speed= 148 kts / 274 km/h / 170 mph
(for comparison: the A-1 Skyraider cruised around over Vietnam at 120 kts / 222 km/h)

The Vigilante has a fixed landinggear, simple; less maintenance and no hydraulics, that also means: no highly inflammable hydraulic oil.
(De)Mobilisation overseas: the Vigilante can be easily knocked down in parts and can be shipped in a standard ISO sea container, mudmover-out-of-tha-box!
Yes, it has a small logistics/ maintenance footprint, plus the TurboTrush is exported to 65 countries, so it's easy to pick up locally available parts and service.
"Cropduster shot down", it is just a pimped up agricultural aircraft, so it has a small 'Political and Propaganda footprint' aswell.

Afraid of US/ NATO/ Coalition KIAs, MIAs or POWs, no worries: teach the locals to fly this simple aircraft, who bothers? This is done before: during the Vietnam-era, Laotian Hhmong illitarate tribal people were thaught to fight with T-28 Trojans, piston engined trainers converted into armed COIN planes, with success.

How much Duck-it / Loot do we need to buy that ugly thing?: USD 1.6 million , the AT-6 costs USD 4.6 million.

Uu Whao Whao Larissa, what kind of dinner have you made? Tonight we will eat fried goat-chram, Locum (Uzbeki delicatesse). You will need that Al, soon you will go to that Shaldag 2nd rate reserve unit (shaldag=Uzbeki for kingfisher, how silly). Yo Eric (Elp), have a nice vacation. Very Happy

Thanks locum for the reply
How the hell did I forget my military service in Greece... Embarassed

All the terrible nights waiting in the cold for border surveillance (narcotics- illegal refuges etc) I would really like one of these things staying stand by for the worst case scenario.

locum wrote:

The AT-6 II against helicopters: helos can perform manoeuvers, which fixed-wing aircraft can't. 2 A-10s intercepted 2 British Lynx-helicopters in 1991 over Northern-Iraq. The Lynx pilots feared that the A-10s tried to shoot them down, so the Lynxes started evasive manoeuvers and so they outturned the Warthogs.

I'm thinking they might have outturned the Warthogs one time. Then the Lynxes would have had all the speed of a strafe rag after the turn. At that point, the Warthogs would extend, turn around, and come back with guns-a-blazing, had they wanted to kill anything. Did it play out differently in real life (not counting an actual shootdown)?

Hey Nomad, Your Yugoslavian neighbours have operated 30 SOKO J-20/ P-2 Kraguj's (Vulture). They flew over a 1,000 combat missions, mainly against the 28th Division of the Bosna Muslim armed forces.

The J-20 Kraguj is a single-seat, Textron-Lycoming 340 HP piston-engine, specially designed COIN aircraft, weighing 3,572 lbs / 1.624 kg max. and with a maximum speed of 211 mph/ 340 km/h.

http://www.yumodel.co.yu/yugoslav_airfo ... kraguj.htm and
http://www.virtualspinllc.com/kragujspecs.htm

The Kraguj has two 7,7mm / .303 guns in the wings and 4 hardpoints, which can take approx 880lbs / 400 kg of (220lbs) bombs and rockets.
The concept; which was similar to John Thorp's Fletcher Defender of 1953, was good, but the Yugoslavians concluded that an aircraft with better performance was needed.

The Fletcher Defender was never used as a ground attacker, the design was converted into the FU-24 cropduster, which in turn saw a new life as the Pacific Aerospace Corp. Cresco 750 cropduster and skydiver plane.

The USAF's Aeronautical Systems Center has issued a Request for Proposals for a COIN/ trainer aircraft on behalf of the Iraqi Air Force. They want 8 planes delivered between November 2008 and April 2009 and a further option for annual lots of 6 aircraft.

The candidates are: 1. Korea Aerospace KO-1 Woong Bee, an armed version of the KT-1.
2. Pilatus PC-9M, the father of the T-6.
3. Embraer EMB-314 Super Tucano, it has a reputation for being 'a bit heavy' for the training role. The EMB-314 is designed from the beginning as an effective short runway light attack/ patrol/ counter-insurgery aircraft that can operate with little ground support.

4. AT-6B Texan II, Hawker Beechcraft unveiled at Farnborough 2006 the AT-6B, equipped with hardpoints, armour etc. For example, the Greek T-6Bs are allready be capable of being armed.

Hopefully this RFP will trigger interest in NATO/Coalition countries, the Canadians allready use T-6s, so maybe we will see AT-6Bs or Super Tucanos over Iraq, Afghanistan etc. instead of supersonic fighters and bombers.

Forum: Air Power

AT-6 -new one not the old one- and small war work