The A-29 Super Tucano can BEAT a 4th gen. jet (in the long run ...)
Вставка
- Опубліковано 3 сер 2024
- The A-29 Super Tucano is quite a remarkable light attack aircraft. Despite being a turboprop it is very effective using precision guided weapons, with a touch of retro. The A-29 Super Tucano is obviously very vulnerable in a high intensity conflict, but this is its strength.
Let's learn how,
#SuperTucano #LightAttack
CHAPTERS
00:00 Intro
00:37 A Cute Little Killer
03:19 Small Jets Grow Up
04:21 For Example
06:09 Attritable?
07:52 And What About the Tucano?
Join this channel to support it:
/ @millennium7historytech
Support me on Patreon / millennium7
One off donation with PayPal www.paypal.com/paypalme/Mille...
Support me on Subscribestar www.subscribestar.com/millenn...
Join the Discord server / discord
----------------------------
Ask me anything!
Take part to the community Q&A clicking the link below!
forms.office.com/r/LNPQtf3Tc0
--------------------
Visit the subreddit!
/ millennium7lounge
---------------------
All images and additional video segments contained in the Thumbnails and/or B-roll segments are used in strict compliance with the appropriate permissions and licenses required from the source and in accordance with the UA-cam Partner Program, Community guidelines & UA-cam terms of service.
The use of visuals doesn't constitute endorsement.
Join this channel to support it:
ua-cam.com/channels/VDkfkGRzo0qcZ8AkB4TMuw.htmljoin
Support me on Patreon www.patreon.com/Millennium7
One off donation with PayPal www.paypal.com/paypalme/Millennium7star
Support me on Subscribestar www.subscribestar.com/millennium-7-history-technology
Join the Discord server discord.gg/6CuWEWuhsk
got a question vs a jet how long can it performed well in a 10hour sorties that need needs the craft to be in the air every time vs the tocano?
One thing, it's incredible effective in patrolling the skies against drug smugglers planes, combined with an E-99 AWACS, It shot down a plane like 2 days ago that had a lot of drugs onboard.
It's obviously an issue that Brazil has to deal with, and the cost of sending a fighter jet would be too much to be considered aceptable.
not just aceptable, I would say impossible, a small plane flying at about 350km/h, 3 to 5 meters above trees in the middle of the Amazon, it would be extremely unsave for a fighter jet to intercept, remembering, it is not just shoot down, there are steps to be made before shooting an aircraft down, that usually requires very close proximity... and that for a jet is very unsafe at such low speeds right close to the deck.
@@GabrielVitor-kq6uj very good observation! Also have the range of Brazilian jets, they can’t go too far for long time.
@@jamysalmeida18 yeah, to sumarize, Super Tucano is just perfect for the role it was envisioned to perform!
It has an overall low cost, can takeoff and land at very short and poor structured runways in the middle of the forest, have great performance at low speeds, as you said it yourself, the range of operation and the amount of hours it can sustain in flight is phenomenal, it is totally capable both in fire power and in overall electronics, can fly and fight in any weather condition, and to finish it up... I know it is personal but... it just looks freaking cool, it's almost an utopia, a old WW2 plane, but built with modern gen4 technology... just awesome.
@@earth9531 the standard procedure for A-29s in border patrol is to hail the alien aircraft and ordering it to the nearest airfield, where either the Federal Police (Brazilian Equivalent of the FBI) or the military would process with their arrest, failing to comply with this order, it would fire a few warning shots from the wing mounted machine guns or the autocanon pods to enforce the order to redirect course to the designated airfield, if the aircraft does not comply in the third hail after the warning shots they will fire missiles on the aircraft. So, there wouldn't really be bullet holes, only a pile of flaming aircraft debris.
Another thing to keep in mind is that a Super Tucano can fly at the same slow speed of a drug smuggling cessna. The A-37 has a hard time with warning shots at such slow speed, and the shots go very high. This happened to the Peruvian Air Force when they shot down a Cessna by mistake. They got no radio answer and the warning shots were not seen.
Makes a lot of sense to have something like the Super Tucano in any airforce. Not just for lead in strike training, but also for limiting operational costs. You do not always need a sledge hammer. Sometimes a little ball hammer wil do. Look at how successful the South Africans were with the MB326 in Angola.
You really should make a video about the AMX platform, so maligned, so crippled at the beginning by political choices but also so loved and appreciated when operationally deployed by crews and allies.
Magnificent little aircraft ❤
Huh, never knew there was an AMX aircraft. Is it related at all to the french AMX tank platforms?
@@RugnirSvenstarr Actually it (allegedly) has more of a swedish herritage. Saab's B3LA.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AMX_International_AMX
ground attack aircraft, designated A-11 Ghibli
As Italian, I really think that the AMX is terrible and I can't imagine an operative theatre in which that thing can fly without being torn apart in a matter of instants.
This is why the SAAF..the South African AirForce..deployed 3 squadrons of Impalas,the locally built AM-326 during the Angolan Bushwar. We used it very successfully in the COIN role..and they scored many kills against Angolan helicopters,and other assets.
This plane is brazilian and was designed by the hungarian Joseph Kovacz, a world famous aircraft designer.
The panel eletronic is from Israel.
The engine is from the United States factory Pratt - Whitney, with 1600 hp.
This plane has electronic devices for almost everything.
My country owns a squadron of these, and its funny how people talk crap about our air force for owning such "low-tech" planes.
But they don't understand that with the local insurgencies we don't need to, and should not, even risk sending out jets into enemy airspace when they don't even have any air assets to counter with. It's going to be a waste of fuel to send one jet, when compared to just having 2 of these flying around and bombing.
People also don't understand that these things are more efficient in flying at low and slow altitudes than jets, which makes bombing and strafing even more 'accurate' so to speak.
There is value in numbers and they are not low tech just different and if 4 rockets are used by a F-35 then its useless after that
Yup, cheaper to use these to bomb insurgents than even something like a FA50.
From my point of view your assessment is correct. The A-29 fulfill your country's needs and that what it counts. I guess your are Colombian.
@@Karl-Benny Not useless The F35 could be used as a surveillance platform
I agree completely. The USA learned this very thing in the 1960s Vietnam war. Jets were too fast, and unable to loiter for long duration. So they had to rush to bring "trainer" prop aircraft into the theater to perform CAS ops.
As well as reactivate 1950s en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_A-1_Skyraider.
Another point in favor of light turboprops like the Super Tucano is that they are faster, have longer range and higher payload than an atack helicopter. They are also harder to shoot down than a helicopter or a cargo plane, so they should have a place in conventional war.
That intro though. 😂😂😂 Yet another informative video on a class of light attack aircraft that is often overlooked. But given our overstretched budget and refocus on Great Power Competition, I don't expect us Americans to pick and utilize something like this any time soon.
Ironically, they are already in use by US National Guard, they have a few unites for test and if the light CAS competition ever goes through, we'll, the A-29 won the bid twice, but theas bidse were canceled by lawsuits. The A-29 was created as a platform for border patrol, close air support and attacking aliens (mostly criminals/drug dealers from neighboring countries) trespassing Brazilian borders, later they were upgraded for the Colombian Air Force, to incorporate more counter insurgency capabilities. According to the US National Guard it is the perfect aircraft to patrol the wouthern borders, and to bring hell to Mexican Drug Cartels trespassing American Borders, as the Super tucano can stay in patrol for as much as 9 hours with external fuel tanks. USAF also thinks it's a suitable choice for light CAS roles, the problem is that there is a lot of loby for improving planes like the A-10, adapting the F-16 or F-35 or using drones for the job, but they cost far more, less the loitering time and aren't any more precise, as the A-29 use the same laser, and satellite guided bombs and them.
I have a soft spot for this type of aircraft but I think that, while the plane is certainly expendable, the pilot is probably not.
Making them optionally manned (if that can be done without substantially increasing cost and complexity) would result in an incredibly versatile Air-frame.
It could serve as trainer, liaison aircraft, light attack, COIN, surveillance and FAC and even as cruise missile, if unmanned.
Anyway great video, keep it up.
That intro went from a budding migraine to laughs very quick! Kudos on your comedic abilities
OTIS once again maneuvering to takeover the channel and form a super conglomerate of all robot voice military info channels on youtube.
Great intro for a great video! Love you both Otis and the old man. The Gina is old too but will always be awesome 😉
There was a video on the Aircrew Interview Chanel where they talk about training with I think f4's and hawks, basically saying that if they could escort the hawks in close enough they could be so manoeuvrable that they surprised the opposition. Obviously this would still be a desperate move.
I partially agree with you on the "attritable" and Mass producable parts. However I believe that in a generalized conflict, drones will be the articles that will be mass produced. The reason for this is that each Tucano has a crew of two. Society is very sensitive on human losses. As it is, this plane is a very good option to go after terrorists or guerrillas in a jungle or in a mountain, when your airforce doesn't have the resources and capabilities to deploy and operate a modern drone.
A single pilot can operate the a29. The Brazilian air have single seat ones for non training operations for exemple.
The scale of conflict he described would be a high-intensity conflict like WW2. Would you use drones, oh Yes, but what do you do after you run out of drones???
Drones are very dependant on computing power and in a major conflict you will run out of chips because you import them all, look at our Auto Industry right now tens of thousands of cars and trucks not sold for lack of chips.
War is not an Apple, it's an Onion with thousands of layers and combinations of layers.
@@Glaucowilker Still a likely casualty. Society is far more sensitive to the loss of life, as opposed to the loss of equipment. In the event of a general conflict, it would be far simpler and politically acceptable to send 400 unmanned drones that would use AI and decide to kill the enemy, as opposed to risking the life of "our boys".
@@IMAN7THRYLOS In a generalized conflict, losing 2,000 pilots along with 2,000 Tucanos will be a drop in the ocean. If you're talking about a large-scale conflict between powerful nations, you can get rid of the sensitivity to casualties if we're talking about aviation, which will always represent a tiny fraction of overall casualties anyway.
I watched an interview with a US colonel saying they project about 40,000 US casualties within a couple of weeks in the event of a land war with Russia.
@@IMAN7THRYLOS i just pointed this out. Yes. A drone is better suited for a high density conflict, modern conflicts is showing this, BUT the A29 cannot be discarted as a meat grinder weapon, unfortunaly is easy to find pilots than chips in war time and yes, the brazilian air force train a lot more pilots than needed for some country particularities, but i doubt they sacrifice themselfs like a kamikaze or some shit like that. Cleary the A29 is a "peace time weapon". The brazilians dont go to war since wwII and this plane is projected to be a frontier patrol with a land based radar oe AWACS/COIN/training and it very good in what it was projected to do.
The definition (and ownership) of the Super Tucano project belongs to the FAB (Força Aerea Brasileira).
It is a trainer for jets, as all of its commands are like jets. There is no propeller torque like other propeller planes, as their engine and propeller are offset from the centerline.
Low operating cost, acquisition and long cell life.
In addition to his role as a coach at the FAB, his main role is to fight trafficking and smuggling in Brazil's giant frontier. So much so that a good part of the FAB's fleet are single-seat Super Tucanos. Make a bomber by destroying clandestine tracks. Interception and slaughter of single and twin engines. Where to be able to fly at low speed is more important than being supersonic. Since one form of single-engine escape would be to fly at speeds below the minimum speed of a pure jet fighter.
Yes, but the jet's missiles don't really care how slow you fly.
that's not how torque works.
@@appa609 - That's true, but from what I understand, a slight offset angle has been used in single-engine prop planes before.
The ownership of the Super Tucano was never by FAB, the project started out 100% on Embraer funds, and by the time FAB really closed its list of requirement and started the ALX program, Embraer already had two prototypes flying. It took a few more years to modify and test the prototypes to FAB Standards, but the final product was 100% Embraer's.
Also the Super tucano was never developed as to a trainer for fighter jets, it was always meant for be a light CAS, COIN and Border Patrol attack plane.
The T-324 Tucano, also by Embraer, was a trainer, the first step in training fighter pilots, they would certify at the Tucano, then they would certify in the Cessna T-27 or the braer AT-26 Xavant Jet trainers.
Embraer and Shorts started working with the idea of an Attack CAS/COIN plane based on the overall design of the T-324 Tucano as early as 1982, while FAB would only issue the requirements for the ALX program around the mid-90s, at that time, as I've said, Embraer already had prototypes for its turboprop attack craft flying for nearly half a decade.
This plane is brazilian and was designed by the hungarian Joseph Kovacz, a world famous aircraft designer.
The panel eletronic is from Israel.
The engine is from the United States factory Pratt - Whitney, with 1600 hp.
This plane has electronic devices for almost everything.
Expandable arifcraft are a difficutl topic. Thank you for just raising the question and leave the answer to the viewer.
Who the fuck is going to fly the expendable aircraft? And no pilots are not quick and easy to train to any level of competency. These are lessons we learned during ww2 for fucks sake. There is a reason we moved to high tech planes.
@@Annou7laI get your point, but may I suggest to use less strong words to make your point.
I am also wondering where the trained work force, production facilities and training centers for pilots are to replace the losses of the high tech equimpment and the pilots flying them in an all out war?
It's a tough pill to swallow, but you make a seriously credible point about the nature of resources in war and the brutal calculus that *needs* to be considered against a peer opponent.
Dat killer intro... man, I laughed hard
Proud to see a Brazilian plane here!!!! 😃
Nice Intro and video!!! Cheers from Brazil!!!
Fascinating stuff, thank you!
I am a former ARMY Company Commander, and staff officer at the Battalion and Brigade level.
The ground forces see the adoption of this trend as a favorable development. This type of aircraft can be fielded from rough airstrips and has lower maintenance requirements than the Army's own rotary wing craft. It means the lag time between the request for support and the arrival of the aircraft can be reduced substantially. Although Tucanos and similar aircraft don't carry as much weaponry as an A-10, they have long loitering times on station. The inexpensive nature of the aircraft means it can be deployed in enough numbers to give better coverage across the day/night cycle than jets can.
Better air support means lower loses on the ground, as well as increased performance and speed of the ground elements in the field.
Thanks for the explanation.
absolutely on point sir. I've commented on this point elsewhere. Different assets have different missions and attributes. The army isn't getting rid of its helos or transports because they can't out dog-fight a modern enemy fighter. There's going to be (or should be) a layered approach with Fighters providing air cover (and hopefully air superiority at some point) w/ armed turboprops providing battlefield ISR, armed overwatch, CAS and COIN, etc. and supporting both troops on the ground and helos going in to supply, ex-fil, medivac and/or provide near ground level air support, etc. These platforms can be outfitted to protect themselves as well as provide A2G support and have datalinks (and even low cost radars) to obtain long range SA/ ISR and new light weight medium range A2A missiles like the Raytheon's new Peregrine missile www.raytheonmissilesanddefense.com/capabilities/products/peregrine-missile/may well make them dangerous for enemy fighters getting thru friendly fighter air cover.
BTW - I think it's time for the USAF to insist that it have it's own fixed wing air assets - at least for CAS and armed overwatch - similar to what they had w/ the OV-10s in Vietnam. Strange that the Marines have their own fixed wing air arm, but not the Army. Also strange that the Marines don't have an armed turboprop that can be stationed at forward unimproved airfields on islands, etc. They could obviously also fly off the USN light carriers that currently only house helos, F35Bs and V-22s. BTW - my favorite design for a multi-role armed turboprop is from Icarus Aerospace: skiesmag.com/news/flight-icarus-canadian-company-proposes-multirole-tactical-aircraft/ That twin engine turboprop is planned as having a pilotless option as well depending on the role/ situation.
Note that US spec ops is looking to acquire up to 75 armed turboprops: www.military.com/daily-news/2021/05/17/these-are-5-planes-vying-be-afsocs-new-armed-overwatch-aircraft.html/ The US Army should follow suit.
It's like having countless numbers of Soviet T-34 during WW2.
Epic as always.
See there is a new video out, click like, then watch video. Yes, in that order.
Never ever been disappointed with your content!
This plane is brazilian and was designed by the hungarian Joseph Kovacz, a world famous aircraft designer.
The panel eletronic is from Israel.
The engine is from the United States factory Pratt - Whitney, with 1600 hp.
This plane has electronic devices for almost everything.
I love your videos
You forget Indonesia and Philippines in the list of the operator
True, I realized this morning but it was too late...it was a copy & paste mistake that I didn't catch at 3AM last night. Apologies.
@@Millennium7HistoryTech its okay, i also just realize that Super Toucano have alot of operator
Superlative video. It is a shame that most people don't understand asset allocation, so I fear this video might take more than its fair share of flack. Truly enjoyable to watch. Cheers and Levcons!
Flying props into combat must be evocative of a grand era in aeronautic history.
"He's a man of certain age and can no longer get on top" :P
Fantastic video mate.
You REALLY touch on a few points that are flasing neon lights to me.
Cost effective large numbers
Affordable to loose & replace
Less training for pilots & maintenance crews .
Cheaper operating costs.
Ect thanks.
Similar aircraft would be perfect against insurgencies. Throwing bombs from F-16 and their insane flight-hour costs is insane. It's like opening walnuts with a hydraulic press.
Plus - the Tukano's slow speed makes it easier to aim accurately.
Their engines have lower heat signature, and the propeller mixes the hot exhaust with turbulent air. It should be very hard to lock-on with a MANPAD (thought I don't have any evidence on that).
I don't think you have evidence for any of your claims to be honest.
The perfect platform for smaller budgeted Asian nations such as the Philippines, Thailand and etc.
"Dad, what does the future look like? Will we have flying cars and space ships?"
"Yes. Billionaires will fly into space with their own rocket planes. Also, robot vacuums will hijack your internet video log."
Anekdote:
A teacher wanted to vizualise the priorities of life to his young students.
He brought a glass jar to the class, and a bag. Placing the jar on the desk, he picked a number of stones from the bag saying:
"These represents your family. Each member is important."
He then picked a number of smaller stones, saying:
"These represents your friends. Each valuable and should be cared for."
He then picked up a small bag of sand, pouring it into the jar saying:
"This sand represents all the people that you will meet and interact with in your life."
He then asked: "Do you understand my point? Do you have questions or comments?"
After a brief silence, one boy stood up, pick something from his backpack, and walked up to the jar.
Opening and pouring, the boy said: "This is proof that there is always room for beer."
In referece to the question regarading a Tucano or similar, being a part of a modern airforce; this anekdote illustrate that small
versitial aircraft, will always have a nishe to fill.
Last time I was this early was before jets were a thing. Ok yeah, this comment is attritable, unlike Otis. Very good video.
OTIS saves the day! 🤣
Yes I agree to your points, and apparently it was also the plan to have the low-cost “trainers” such as the L-39 tasked with defending airfields, during an all-out war were the costlier jets would be occupied elsewhere.
Oh so you dare summon us, Brazilians, talking about the Super Tucano, expect a flurry of us.
If I built my military if I had my own nation (a man can dream) I’d have A-29 Super Tucanos and and McDonnell Douglas F/A-18 Hornets in my Air Force inventory.
I AGREE TOTALLY!
One factor that I think is rarely considered is that these fairly cheap aircraft could be very (cost) efficient UAV and drone hunters in a congested and contested airspace. Not least because they can get up close to a UAV to avoid the possibility of taking down civilian aircraft accidentally.
This plane is brazilian and was designed by the hungarian Joseph Kovacz, a world famous aircraft designer.
The panel eletronic is from Israel.
The engine is from the United States factory Pratt - Whitney, with 1600 hp.
This plane has electronic devices for almost everything.
In close air support or light attack, the 100 super tucano and 50 amx make a great job in the Brazilian air force!
You missed Lebanon in the operators section. There’s 6 with the 7th squadron since 2017. And they were the first tucanos to be equipped with the APKWS guided rockets
The advantage of Super Toucano is high loiter time.
That's what I've been thinking and in a high-intensity war, you will have low-intensity zones or zones where 10 extra planes will win the battle.
Don’t quit your day job to teach at Air War College, civilian…
This plane is brazilian and was designed by the hungarian Joseph Kovacz, a world famous aircraft designer.
The panel eletronic is from Israel.
The engine is from the United States factory Pratt - Whitney, with 1600 hp.
This plane has electronic devices for almost everything.
I totally agree with you. Such an aircraft can be the last aircraft type in existence after a total war because it can be assembled in workshops. Moreover you are right, professionals don't like this idea because they like sexy shining high tech packages but in a real total war often this is useless.
This plane is brazilian and was designed by the hungarian Joseph Kovacz, a world famous aircraft designer.
The panel eletronic is from Israel.
The engine is from the United States factory Pratt - Whitney, with 1600 hp.
This plane has electronic devices for almost everything.
Such a strategy shows scant concern for the pilot's life. However i can't deny the efficacy of such a strategy, used by the Russians in WW2 and replicated by others later. Alas, you are right
If you think the Russians showed scant concern for their forces then you are dumb for accepting propaganda that was put out by rehabilitated Nazis that were folded into NATO ranks. The Soviets lost 27 million people during WW2 and destroyed 150 divisions. While the Western allies all together faced not even 50 divisions and lost barely 1 million; and joined only during the last 3 years of the war when it was clear that the Soviets had already achieved strategic initiative after Stalingrad.
Out of the 27 million, around 20 million were civilians. Most of them were exterminated in concentration camps or worked to death in slave labour camps. Much is made of the suffering of the Western European Jews during the conflict but the Soviets, with Jews among them, lost 3 times as many to reprisals, slave labour camps and outright massacres.
7 million KIA overall, came about from fighting for 5 years, against Germany and Japan. On the Eastern Front the Soviets lost around 5 million; most of them in the initial 1-2 years when the Soviet Union was caught entirely off guard and refused to believe that Nazi Germany would invade them. Stalin was so assured of this because before Operation Barbarossa, the USSR had supplied up to half of the steel and coal to Germany and thought that trade would be enough to deter Hitler from simply taking resources instead of paying for them.
Just like Chamberlain, Stalin thought (wrongly) that simply partitioning Poland would be sufficient to deter war. Nevertheless by the time of war's outbreak, Stalin had indeed started to prepare for war against Hitler; but the army was stripped of experienced officers after the purges; its formations undermanned and underequipped and it would have taken at least a year before they could have been a credible resistance to German armies. The Soviets had no idea how to conduct modern combined arms warfare; and they suffered for it terribly.
And what do you know? It took a over a year of horrible losses, almost losing Moscow itself, before the Soviets finally got their act together and stopped getting outmaneuvered by the Germans and started encircling Germans themselves. First with Operation Uranus; and from thenceforth all the way to Berlin. All the while, Romanians, Hungarians and Germans were burning villages, massacring their occupants, and sending the more fit survivors off to labour camps. Anecdotes of Soviet leaders hesitating to commit forces to a breach abound during the summer of 1941. What you consider to be "scant concern" for life was instead hesitation, inexperience, and fear; causing terrible casualties as a result of these mistakes.
@malthias Your knowledge of Russia's role in WW2 definitely seems to be much deeper than mine. Would appreciate if you could share some refs/videos where i can read up more on this.
Having said that, I having a fair scepticism for Western historians - I'm an Indian and eurocentric historical narratives have always painted a skewed picture of India's contributions historically and almost noone talks about the number of Indian soldiers which made up the bulk of British army because, afterall, it is just a tiny nation. But in terms of military strategy, and from the general opinion I've gathered online, Russians military doctrine has in general been much more accepting of people and hardware loss as long as it's leading in the right strategic direction. Maybe Western forces were the same in WW2 and this notion itself is flawed - would like to see some refs on this particular aspect.
Just to clarify, these links are about the general outlook and performance of the armies at the time. With more modern information than Cold War historiography.
Soviet Union was doing everything it could to create a modern 1940s army. But it was in the middle of a massive reorganization in 1941. Poor officer performance in large part came from the massive expansion of the Soviet army, introducing a less-experienced officer corps. There were some decent doctrines in the Soviet army developed over 1930s and into 1940s, interrupted and shifted by purges and other developments.
Ultimately, Soviet army could not even employ forces as envisioned in pre-war strategies because of the massive attack and collapse of the front, not to mention the general lack of readiness of the Western-stationed army in Summer 1941. This led to a greater reliance in high-casualty attacks just to try and stem the advancing enemy tide. More intricate strategies and tactics came about as soon as the Soviet army was able to start dictating the time and place of engagements, such as after Battle of Moscow.
@@brendanstone3073 This was a very insightful summary of "Why" Soviet Union used the strategies it did at that time, and helps me understand why this happened and why this is not an efficient/preferable strategy. Thank you!
@@gunjanjuyal7693 Glad it was helpful! You've got some great reading ahead.
My major concern is that yes, it's quickly built, quickly replaced and quickly trained. However, even if attritable, it is wholly unsuited to a high intensity fight. Against an insurgent force yes, it's far more efficiant than something like the A-10 of which there is a limited amount and that costs more per flight hour. On the flip side, the armaments it can bring to the fight are unsuited against harder targets. Save for the 5 hardpoints which are still limited to 1500kg total. It just doesn't have the punching power in what would be a modern hot war. Even light anti-aircraft capabilities of a suppressed opponent would pose a serious threat to it. The fact that the FARC shot one down is enough to show the contrast between it and something more robust and durable such as, even the A-1, which although older, could punch harder, although, obviously, without modern avionics and combat systems. So yeah, great for low intensity combat and law enforcement against robust criminal activities but against an other military force, I think these would be little more than cannon fodder.
thanks for speaking louder in this video
I have been hearing a lot about those. They seem practical.
This plane is brazilian and was designed by the hungarian Joseph Kovacz, a world famous aircraft designer.
The panel eletronic is from Israel.
The engine is from the United States factory Pratt - Whitney, with 1600 hp.
This plane has electronic devices for almost everything.
People forget sometimes the cost of war, having fighters like this can be really usefull, yeah your F-35 probably will survive for longer time but between it fighting the big fight, and it being expensive something cheaper really is needed.
Yes cannon fodder is not something you want, but in a war where you gonna lose stuff, between something expensive and something cheap, better lose something cheap
Can't agree more! This aircraft would make great machine if produced in huge numbers to win a short war.
This plane is brazilian and was designed by the hungarian Joseph Kovacz, a world famous aircraft designer.
The panel eletronic is from Israel.
The engine is from the United States factory Pratt - Whitney, with 1600 hp.
This plane has electronic devices for almost everything.
They are more efficient than Apaches
Likely more survivable.
@@florbfnarb7099 flighthour price
@@user-en1sq8ph6g - Makes sense. Helicopters have a ton of vibration from what the pilots tell me, so it makes sense lots of little stuff would need fixing.
Also as slow as they are, they'll blow the doors off any helicopter.
A-29 has to be one of my favorite planes, such a shame nobody has heard of it 😢
This plane is brazilian and was designed by the hungarian Joseph Kovacz, a world famous aircraft designer.
The panel eletronic is from Israel.
The engine is from the United States factory Pratt - Whitney, with 1600 hp.
This plane has electronic devices for almost everything.
This plane is brazilian and was designed by the hungarian Joseph Kovacz, a world famous aircraft designer.
The panel eletronic is from Israel.
The engine is from the United States factory Pratt - Whitney, with 1600 hp.
This plane has electronic devices for almost everything.
🇧🇷 Ótimo comentário!!!Faz muito sentido...
I liked your explanation of low tech and limited expected flight hours. Was that also the same philosophy used for WWII aircraft as well?
Little know fact about the Super Tucano is that there is a single-seat model, the A-29A, currently half of the fleet of Brazilian ST. The dual-seat model you see in other air forces is the A-29B.
upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e4/A-29A_Super_Tucano_Rob_Schleiffert.jpg
Good observation, thank you.
Great video...Super Tucano reminiscent of the COIN aircraft used in Vietnam... seems that the 'low end' of military aviation is moving all the time...we might be looking at a shift in requirements given the operating costs of the F 35....be very interested in the logical follow on to this...light jet trainers as part of the high/low mix...Hongdu L15 seems comparable to Taiwan's IDF... interesting times
Its fascinating when looking at this aircraft or the pucara you can see a blend of the best elements of German and Allies aircraft coming together, except for the details and avionics of course.
Well one advantage about them is that if we ever find a situation where we find that they are needed it wouldn't take long to fix by a quick introduction of them, because of their ease to production, training, and everything else. So my guess is probably not worth constructing them ahead of time, likely it would be better to just quickly introduce something like this dynamically in an event of a war scenario where they would be needed. Though it seems like the most common solution would be to build up in peacetime a much more capable force as a deterrence, especially because usually in peace times you only have a small force limited by relatively few volunteers joining. Additionally this peacetime force would likely be able to buy some time for further decisions to be made as though they will take losses likely not as fast as a lower end force would. Of course though if you have a large enough lower end force you could probably match or surpass the high end force but I don’t think many places can support such massive forces for example if the US tries to match china with low end and numbers it likely wouldn’t end well due to the disparity in population size, and ability for the government to conscript its population likely the US wouldn’t be able to conscript nearly as many troops as china causing them to be outnumbered substantially, but of course even low end itself is hard to define and their might be a sort of middle area that is how low is to low and how high is to high. Additionally with war production ramping up it's really hard to tell just how much faster production, and training can take place as with WW2 there generally wasn't the need to introduce something less advanced for production reasons you could usually produce something more advanced and capable at the same time as producing more of them. But in modern warfare it's hard to tell if this would be achievable, as there have been countless advances in technology since for faster production rates but the amount of technology and components are expenational greater than in WW2 which makes it really hard to figure out how production rates would change. Through one advantage about the wingman idea is that they could skip training which would allow for them to be pushed into service faster but of course they have their own disadvantages such as potential large scale loss of drones due to EW but in the end of the day basically all this comes down to is a complex problem with no certain answer. Definitely a great video though that is worth thinking over and talking about.
In a war you need to be cost effective .
Iranian air force managed to import an unknown number of Chinese F6s during Iran Iraq war... later I red on a " well informed " local airspace magazine they have repurposed them into " anti ship transonic loiter ordinance " attritable is name of the game...
Great report about the Super Tucano.
One important aspect is that a "low tech " airplane is an adequate strong weapon against low tech enemies, internal or external, like terrorist groups or insurrections. Scenario observed in the some middle-east and African regions today for exemple.
One of the ideas behind the developement of the Tucano as a "combat" airplane was as a Border Patrol with dissuasive power against "heavily armed" drug dealers and terrorist goups operating boats and small civilian airplanes close or across Brazilian border. Brazil have huge jungle border with other countries with low or unexistent regular control.
This situation is common in other Southamerican and african countries too.
Another aspect is that you need "low tech" armament to to start a conflict from a lower level, dissuasive or preemtive actions. This avoids an overreaction from the counterpart.
A lot of what he said has precedent in many WW2 designs. Aircraft that were intentionally not as high tech or advanced as they could have been, with many cut corners in the design and build phase because they were intended to be made in large numbers and to be expendable.
My immediate thought was "It's like a turbo Mustang"
Modern jets look like sports cars, the A29 looks like a murder weapon
Very good video and interesting perspective. The Tucano has a role in modern warfare for certain. The ones who fly it know. But stepping back, one Tucano may require 1 or 2 very expensive missiles to be expended by the other side. And flying amongst the foliage, the Tucano will be difficult to neutralize BVR. With magazine size an issue in today's landscape, I'm not sure you mentioned this point.
BVR is not the biggest threat Tucano has to face. It's going to be MANPADS, heavy machine guns and anti air cannons like ZU 2. Most of them, sadly, may soon become very accessible on black market thanks to USA's immaculate pull out game.
@@pickledpotato4771 turboprops have a low IR signature vs. jets. The prop cools the air flowing over the plane.
From the perspective of a light infanterist and patrol soldier this is the only combat airplane platform type that makes sense tactically for an attrition warfare. Not even anti-tank role helicopters as gunships are cheap enough to operate to win over a low intensity warfare area.
The only bird that matters is the one that can stay on station before during and after the battle - embedded with he unit as an overwatch, the other birds in the sky are predators of the low/high mix tier ecosystem that are there to keep the enemies little mosquitos or bugs out of the heads of the soldiers on the ground.
In any conlfict holding the ground is the main objective, that cannot be done (supposedly) without air dominance, but as we have seen in all low intensity warfare, obviously the price of war and time on station matters. And the insurgency from paramilitary unit in ex-Yugoslavia or civilean clothed organisations like Taleban and Mujahedeen rogue fighters - cannot be effectively assessed as combatants, CRT close reconesance without boots on the ground and so any anti-material platforms will be too heavy to operate in cost, like Apache are useless unless they have a valuable tank aversary force to chew up.
Hence drones...
The concept of the Forward Air Controller working with an "embedded airplane" follwoing each unit is gonna be the tactical winner - the merger between drones and jet packs and operator is interesting, but an overwatch in form of a little bird with a precision mini-gun and grenade launcher and small hydra kits is the most recognisable form of attritable warfare we can imagine without reinventing the platoon doctrine.
From a SOF perspective SOAR 160th and the small fireteam units of Delta/SEAL and ODAs, this is already the case, but not something that has won the conventional warfare units over yet - even if we are all dreaming of it
The funny fact is that aircraft can become so small - that even air dominance aircraft of 4th and 5th generation and their MIL Standard missiles, via the mentioned databus systems, the missiles themselves will be more expensive than entire air units. Including pilot training time and fuel spent. Such as small ultralight fixed-wings piston propeller aircraft.
I am just gonna go even further out on a limb and propose a scenario of a future warfare tactic. All out warfare by a non combatant insurgency against a vastly supperior enemy in such a micro-Tucano costing 10.000 usd to build. With the right "manforce " such as cheap cannon fodder in men, for instance African/Asian conflict; any tactical unit with an overwatch like this small type aircraft is the most effective low intensity warfare unit cost wise to kinetic power effective seen yet.
The question of what happens in a prolonged large scale modern war is interesting. We honestly can not really know, because at the point where we would be making cheap little aircraft to have something that flies, the combat would no doubt look like something we can not really predict, if even imagine now. There is no doubt after the initial phase of finding out what is the actual performance of the weapons and if they are any good at all, there would be major adjustments and new inventions and innovations in weapons development. Trying to guess what would be the best sustainable aircraft to build with the resources we don't quite know is in my opinion absolutely impossible to beforehand.
Interdiction for low flying, low speed cessnas with drugs is another good aplication for these aircrafts.
lol nice intro
There is one small problem you failed to mention, man-portable air-defense systems like stinger or Igla that are even more cheaper than Tucano ;)
The Argentinians didn't deploy front line jet aircraft to the Falklands because the Brits cut the longest runway on the island in half with bombs dropped from a Vulcan. If not for the success of that mission, it may have been a very different conflict.
Light attack aircraft take the pressure off of higher end aircraft to do everything, which makes those high end aircraft more available for critical missions. If 20 F-16s are being used for counter insurgency (a squadron of F-16s in Afghanistan was common throughout the war, for example), that's 20 less F-16s to do other things. If 10 of those F-16s were replaced by, say 4 A-29s a piece, that's 10 more F-16s that are able to be tasked, and better close air support for the COIN mission too.
Even in a high intensity conflict, I think light attack aircraft have applications, though they would have to be employed very carefully. They can counter various asymmetric threats in the rear area, and if there's localized air superiority, they may even have applications against front line ground units. Aircraft with modern PGMs have good standoff (and with weapons like the Brimstone, very good standoff), and putting air defenses that have any sort of range close to the front lines is difficult, since they are very vulnerable to artillery fire.
I think the big question is whether light attack aircraft make sense vs. unmanned aircraft for lower intensity missions. Light attack aircraft don't have the network requirements of unmanned aircraft, and the lack of input lag means that manned aircraft can be flown more aggressively, making them more responsive to calls for fire. However, they're also significantly more expensive than comparable UAVs like the Bayraktar TB2, which was used to such great effect during the Nagorno Karabakh war.
But finally, the way the A-29 really wins against a 4th generation fighter is in flat scissors. :P
I saw the ones delivered to the Philippine Airforce at Clark Air field. Beautiful aircraft👍. When funds were still not available, the Philippines had two Italian airplanes (Marchetti, I think) modified for the ground attack: SF260 and S-211.
This aircraft would shine when air-dominance has already been achieved, or during a low intensity conflict where surface to air missiles would be uncommon. I kind of see it as an ultra-modern ww2 piston fighter without any of that pesky dogfighting.
This plane is brazilian and was designed by the hungarian Joseph Kovacz, a world famous aircraft designer.
The panel eletronic is from Israel.
The engine is from the United States factory Pratt - Whitney, with 1600 hp.
This plane has electronic devices for almost everything.
The difference in purchase price between this and an F-16 doesn't seem worth it, but the operating cost is apparently ~$1,000 per flight hour? That does seem worth it.
Such attack aircrafts can be incorporated into air wings of army and navy to give them air support and recon without involving air force
Gives flexibility
the Tucano was my favorite airplane when I was a little kid.
my only gripe is no 1 seat models because it's not aesthetic. a very dumb reason and obviously 2 people are better than 1 but still
2:22 I'm assuming the panels on the side of the fuselage are armor plate.
yes, those are add on armor plates.
ok this intro was funny!
Super Tucano. Today's Stuka.
No, because it also does interception like hunting slow aircraft like helicopters and others.
Comparing the ST with A10 we will see that the ST can be more available and take off faster to reach its destination. He can loiter for longer.
In that sense the ST is the better option and the A10 is a "necessary evil" for hotter operations.
Another Call of Duty general! 😆😂🤣
@@Frankie5Angels150 say for yourself. I have a hobby of studying geopolitics and warfare.
Only someone who takes intellect lightly thinks everyone else does it too and cannot recognise those who do it.
Keep going, what you say tells more about you than about me.
Or you can use your knowledge to explain why exactly I'm wrong and show you are capable. Doesn't look like, but... I've shown I'm a man of learning.
Edit: your silence will say a lot too
Can you do a video on the Textron Scorpion? Seems it could fulfill the same low end role as the Super Tucano but with a jet engine?
It will be more expensive to operate and is an unproven platform in combat.
@@wallacemjr every new platform is unproven in combat until it's tested. The Super Tucano is untested as well in anything other than a low-grade conflict. The Scorpion has certain advantages & disadvantages. Greater speed & 2 engines are always an advantage as is a bigger payload capacity and an internal bay capable of carrying additional sensors (like a sea spray wide array aesa radar for maritime/ surface ISR), or extra fuel, etc. It's biggest drawback vs. turboprops is the inability to operate from unimproved airfield meaning it's not as easy to forward deploy or takeoff from & and land at dirt/ austere landing strips - which is why it's not been considered by the US spec ops folks who want that versatility. Again, each platform has its advantages & disadvantages and operations for which it might be best suite. No different than helicopters, turboprop & jet transport & cargo planes and bombers & light & heavy fighters all having a role and an advantage in certain scenarios and for certain missions.
The current trend in attritable air assets is drones, and for good reason. No human life risk, cheaper, high ceiling and loitering time on a completely different league (the last one is a game changer actually)... the only disadvantage is the possibility of the enemy interfering and jamming the control signal but it would take some pretty high-tech equipment and knowledge base to achieve that. Or not?
Maybe a good idea for a video. How jammable/interferable are drones actually?
I hope ALL possibilities are being explored. I mean, have they looked at F-5Gs or F-20s? How about recently mothballed Super Hornets? More and more it seems less about platform performance, and more about equipment installed - like cutting edge synthetic aperture radar, high-resolution infrared all-weather night vision, advanced gps, and other means of detection, targeting ‘fire control’ computers, coupled with newest precision guided weapons, and battle management systems. Even ‘low end’ aircraft, in sufficient numbers, and so equipped, all coordinated with front-line E-3 AWACS aircraft would present a formidable threat to even the most modern fighters prosecuting offensive actions taken in an invasion-style air campaign.
On a short budget airforce, loosing a few 4 gen fighters might risk the countries sovereignty against other threats and change geopolitical games. For example, Argentina feared more Chile (and Brazil, on the long run) than giving the Falklands back.
Actually the problem runs deeper: if your air force is made up mostly by low tier planes and you have just a handful of fighter jets to play with, loosing the expensive ones will hit your "status" as a military bragging power much more and your credibility will suffer in the eye of other nations. As far as you loose the Grunts of the sky, then nobody really cares
Just check the history of the Peru/Equador conflict and whay happened as soon as the Peruvian lost a couple of first line jets.
No, not Brazil. It was not a conflict hipotesis at the time.
In high intensity environment, the answer of whether Tocano would work is a definite no. The main issue is that modern radar directed AA guns are very effective to these types of targets, the slow speed means longer exposure time and easier to track for guns. As there is a relatively cheap counter to this, an air force buying Tucano in large number would prompt large increase in ligher AA gun purchase for the rival.
HY!!! I've ALWAYS liked the TALIBIDEN'S attack plane ... prop and all.
This is hardly a new concept; both the utility and the vulnerability of light attack aircraft has been demonstrated time and time again. They are affordable and effective against under-defended ground forces in a permissive environment. The idea of using them in a non-permissive environment with the idea that soaking up enemy missiles would make the loss rate acceptable is ludicrous. Anti-aircraft munitions are always cheaper and easier to replace than aircraft. In any war you can afford to lose pilots even less than you can afford to lose aircraft. And training its pilots is not simpler and easier than training jet pilots when those jets are also ground attack only aircraft.
A country equipping to deter or fight a war against a well equipped force cannot afford to tie up procurement dollars, or operations and maintenance funds and personnel, in deceptively cheap loss leaders that can't take the fight to that enemy. If they must sit around waiting in case a war characterized by a persistent permissive environment does emerge, you can afford to wait for that to happen before you build quantities of these aircraft and increase the size of your force in order to field them - that has been the history.
Permissive theaters plagued by insurgents is around half the conflict US got into in the past 50 years. Also the idea that the A-29 cannot take the fight to the enemy is somewhat arguable too. It was made for CAS and COIN, any situation where your ground troops are openly walking through enemy territory, isn't a highly air contested theater, by the time you send troops, you already shut down most if not all SAM systems, airfields and the most of the enemy airforce.
The A-29 fills a role closer to the A-10, it can use most, if not all, weapons the A-10 can use, the only weapon the A-10 has that the A-29 clearly can't use is its bestial Gatlin Canon, but even so the A-29 can be equipped with autocanon pods to fight armored vehicles, it may not fare as well against a heavy tanks divisions, as despite being quite armored to their size, they are not as armored as the A-10, but the A-29 was designed to take down medium armored tanks and vehicles, and, in the end, how many militaries today have substantial numbers of heavy tank divisions. By my count, only a handful.
@@nichendrix Equipping to fight the last war is the common pitfall USAF is attempting to avoid. The U.S. is now struggling to climb out of the hole it dug by deferring procurement of high end systems needed to oppose a peer adversary. You are basing your concept of how a conflict with such an adversary would pan out based on recent history rather than the actual order of battle a major power would bring to a major conflict. There is no waiting until enemy SAMs and air are gone before committing ground forces if the enemy has the initiative. All the SAMs and AAA will never be gone, let alone gone before friendly troops are attacked by enemy armor, infantry, and artillery formations. USAF must prepare to fight in highly contested airspace rather than in the benign airspace you are assuming will exist over the battlefield.
The A-1d Skyraider already proved the utility slow and cheap for air to ground support in Vietnam. Brass likes shiny, Boots need effective.
A-1 losses were very high.
@@ChucksSEADnDEAD True, that wasn't the only lesson learned from the A-1 program. Lessons I would expect to be considered by agencies interested in the A-29.
@@mban2748 My point is that "shiny and airworthy" is better than "effective and also a burning wreck on the ground".
A simple jet design simular to the hawk may help in a dogfight
I'm all for development of planes like the Super Tucano. It allows us in the US to maintain the numbers necessary for smaller conflicts against lower-tier enemies, particularly terrorist groups, without diverting sufficient funds to cripple procurement of higher-end, top tier aircraft. You can't send F-22s to every small conflict.
That said, I'm skeptical that it's a sufficient choice to replace the A-10 as a close support aircraft in larger conflicts against near peer states. While yes there's some debate over the A-10's survivability in contested airspace, still, the A-10 would be far more survivable than anything like the Super Tucano. While both can carry a pair of Sidewinders for self-defense, the A-10 also has that incredible gun on it, and has the armor and resilience to take a lot more damage than the Super Tucano.
And of course in the attack and close support roles, ground forces will need much stiffer defenses to kill a prowling A-10; small arms fire could bring down a Super Tucano.
Are you familiar with the old DASH program? The USN employed a light ASW drone helicopter that crashed a lot. It was viewed as a missile replacement so this was deemed acceptable... for a while. Unfortunately (from one point of view) peace kept on happening and the operators kept needing to practice and, as it became rather expensive to keep crashing drones, they abandoned it.
2:13 im pretty sure this is the F-5M's cockpit from the Brazilian Air Force
Ahm, you really forgot talking about Endurance (On Station Time without Air Refueling) and about the Fact that for Anti Insurgency Operations Speed is not the Issue... It is a cheaper and more low Tech approach for Work done by Predator Drones. You do not need the Satelite and Control Infrastructure. And the Pilot's can fly above the Ranges of Manpad's or AAA.
Super tucano can carry air to air missiles to intercept another aircraft
It's hard to believe it cost $20-30m each
In the same style, the argentinian Pucara !
Not really, Pucara is closer to the A-10 than to the ST.
It has a titanium tub around the cockpit, heavy guns/cannons, twin engined for better survivability, way more hardpoints and payload.
Its inferior to the A-10 but both suit similar requirements, Pucara just does it on a tighter budget.
Plus Pucara is better suited to operate from grass/dirt airfields. Thats quite a plus when running COIN operations in unprepared areas.
I would dare to say its the best plane designed in argentina, it excels in every requirement of its design process.
@Millennium7* have you read the article made bu VICE about the a-29 super tucano? Very interesting, worth the reading