Super Tucano Air Fighters, Any Good?

[NALs]

I saw the report on DR1 News about how they are not the right aircraft for coastal drug interdiction. I sorta scratched my head, couldn't understand where that info came from.

You had to scratch your head? :surprised

Um, haven't you noticed that everyone knows more about everything than the politicos. :cheeky:

You should've been around when the discussion was about the machines used to make the tunnels for the Metro. Whoa, it couldn't be done... that's what they said... LOL! :cheeky:

In all seriousness, it won't be long before everyone reads in the papers of the first drug plane shot down with one of the new tucanos. Of course, when that happens no one mentions this thread, but.... LOL!

-NALs

 

[pyratt]

Has anyone addressed the fact that shooting down unarmed aircraft is a violation of International Law? Check ICAO and OAS statutes....the thought of chasing down aircraft to shoot them down is..... well, it's dumb. You can video them, follow them, force them to land....but shoot them down?

And I have my doubts on training Dominican pilots to do "battle or dogfight manuvers" at low altitude (and at night) without a steep and catistrauphic learning curve....that's based on 1000 hours of cockpit experience at 500 feet or less.....what does the DRAF fly now?

IMHO a better purchase would have been Blackhawks or Apaches...easier to get to the dope and catch the bad guys once the product is on the ground or dropped to a boat.

 

[IslandDreaming]

I honestly don't know what the "fastest" twin available is, but would be highly doubtful of anything over 340. I think the Tucano would be right in there speed wise, definite surpass most in climb and "acceleration" with 5 blade prop.
Speed is a big issue in BVR when you are discussing Supersonic "interceptors?, such as F22, Mig 33 etc, but drug interdiction is not a drag race, interdiction is just that; identify an aircraft and vector your "interceptor"
Reliability and loiter time are big issues if you need to keep someone on station.
Blackhawk is nice if you are the USA, Israel etc and can afford the $three to five thousand dollars PER FLIGHT HOUR of maintenance for the AH 64 or H-60
After you shell out 25 million plus for an Apache, what do you have other than a very nice gunship? Kind of hard to carry tactical troops in an Apache.
Tucano makes a lot of sense, very high reliability, low learning curve, low maintenance, high reliability; seems what a small country AF would need as EMB designed the Tucano specifically for this purpose.
Robert; when you mentioned "Special" props, likely what they referred to was a design to limit the cavitation and noise when flying low at night, all props of complex airplanes are adjustable in flight for spedd/power/fuel etc.


And as Pyrat said; you really don't want to open up with a bunch of 50 cals over inhabited territory and spash a plane in the middle of a mall

 

[NALs]

Has anyone addressed the fact that shooting down unarmed aircraft is a violation of International Law? Check ICAO and OAS statutes....the thought of chasing down aircraft to shoot them down is..... well, it's dumb. You can video them, follow them, force them to land....but shoot them down?

And I have my doubts on training Dominican pilots to do "battle or dogfight manuvers" at low altitude (and at night) without a steep and catistrauphic learning curve....that's based on 1000 hours of cockpit experience at 500 feet or less.....what does the DRAF fly now?

IMHO a better purchase would have been Blackhawks or Apaches...easier to get to the dope and catch the bad guys once the product is on the ground or dropped to a boat.

The Dominican Air Force will not be sneaking behind drug planes and arbitrarily shoot them to the ground.

The shooting will only take place after such planes are ordered to land and only if they refuse to follow the orders of the Air Force.

Chances are that once those drug planes have their signals intercepted by the Air Force, and consequently be ordered to land they will:

A) dump the merchandise while airborne and then land the plane (this is highly unlikely).

B) land their planes with the merchandise on board (sorry, not going to happen).

Or

C) abort their mission and attempt to leave Dominican airspace (aka, head for the sea) and once they are over water the Dominican Air Force will shoot them down.

I'm sure the Air Force will not shoot at anything over Dominican land, unless its in some remote unpopulated part of the island and I doubt they will do anything if the drug planes enter Haitian airspace.

The only option left is shooting them over water as they try to leave Dominican airspace.

-NALs

 

[JRMirador]

There are international precedents for not shooting down unidentified aircraft in the region. The most recent cases involve the downing of a missionary plane in Peru, and the two aircrafts downed by the Cuban airforce in 1996. The US has taken these two incidents into account for their current policy prohibiting the downing of unidentified aircraft in the Caribbean. The US government has already advised the DR, in very strong terms, against this.

 

[NALs]

Anyone wondering what is the Dominican government doing at ground level to combat the drug trade, well look at this video. This was in Capotillo in the capital. The images speaks volume.

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/otbUm2cuKYE&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/otbUm2cuKYE&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

I can't believe people are against stopping this evil trade.

It must be stopped on land, water, and air.

-NALs

 

[pyratt]

There are international precedents for not shooting down unidentified aircraft in the region. The most recent cases involve the downing of a missionary plane in Peru, and the two aircrafts downed by the Cuban airforce in 1996. The US has taken these two incidents into account for their current policy prohibiting the downing of unidentified aircraft in the Caribbean. The US government has already advised the DR, in very strong terms, against this.

Which is who I flew with and logged my seat time.....I'm trying to publish a book on that shoot down, the military communications transcripts were chilling to read.

NALs whether over land or sea, the Dominican government will put themselves in a bad position internationally the first time they pull the trigger....the best way to stop the current drug trade in the DR is to get the government and military officials out of the business...their noses are far from clean.....literally.

 

[aegap]

Aside from grafts, there are many things that can push the price of a military plane up. Some of the most common are training of the pilots and maintenance crew, and spare parts contracts and/or maintenance guarantees. Not to mention good'ole natural inflation.

The Super Tucano is an upgraded version of this plane, ..

<EMBED height=350 type=application/x-shockwave-flash width=425 src=http://www.youtube.com/v/ib15_IGDO0c wmode="transparent">
YouTube - Intercepta??o - Tucano​

 

[aegap]

The plane is capable, but I have almost not confidence on DR's government ever having the capabilities to use it effectively.

 

[cobraboy]

Without effective radar coverage, a technology that IS possible to install cost effectively, no aircraft can perform drug interdiction effectively.

But the fact the ST's are coming, surely the drug runners have to factor that into their planning, radar or not.

Long loiter time and IR radar, even if forward looking, gives the good guys an advantage over the bad guys. Keep in mind is DOWN looking as well as forward. S-Turns away from the coast gives decent, although incomplete, vision.

BTW-it would be possible to shoot down a plane and nobody would know it. The USCG has a history of "accidentally" splashing drug planes with their lift vortices from Falcons (I once tried landing a mile or so behind a C-130 in a 172, nearly went upside-down 800' AGL. :surprised No mas, I give big heavies a LOT of time to let the air settle down...)

 

[Robert]

I can't believe people are against stopping this evil trade.

It must be stopped on land, water, and air.

-NALs

It's not about being against it, so please don't start that line of BS, your better than that.

The drug trade here touches every level of the military and government.
It's been going on for years, from Pena Gomez, modified Presidential planes to Bani.

Nice image of the cop kicking the dog (4.43).

The experts say the US$90,000,000+ could have been better spent.
These are the people that do this for a living, not the shiny black jeepeta driving chopos that get paid off to raise their hand.

This deal is about graft and keeping Uncle Sam Happy, period.
It's not about doing the right thing or what's right for the DR.

 

[Robert]

You had to scratch your head? :surprised

Um, haven't you noticed that everyone knows more about everything than the politicos. :cheeky:

You should've been around when the discussion was about the machines used to make the tunnels for the Metro. Whoa, it couldn't be done... that's what they said... LOL! :cheeky:

-NALs

The Metro hasn't carried a "subsidized" paying passenger yet. It has issues, they have had problems.

Why don't you go and speak to some of the engineers that actually built the Metro and ask them what's going on?

The most positive thing I see about the US$1 billion+ Metro is it will be another nail in the coffin of the transport unions.

If you have a comment or response, PM me or start a new thread, this is not a Metro related thread.

 

[Robert]

And I have my doubts on training Dominican pilots to do "battle or dogfight manuvers" at low altitude (and at night) without a steep and catistrauphic learning curve....that's based on 1000 hours of cockpit experience at 500 feet or less.....what does the DRAF fly now?

You have the same doubts as the experts.

Dominican pilots have ZERO combat experience, most have very little flying experience. Except those that have been flying the planes the Tucano's were brought to chase

 

[RHM]

The experts say the US$90,000,000+ could have been better spent.
These are the people that do this for a living, not the shiny black jeepeta driving chopos that get paid off to raise their hand.

This deal is about graft and keeping Uncle Sam Happy, period.
It's not about doing the right thing or what's right for the DR.

Rob's first point is the main one - the "gubmint" owes about $200 million to the electricity distributors but cries poor. Then they borrow over $90 million to buy a few planes that are probably not the best choice to combat narco-traffickers (forget about the training and abilities of the pilots for now). Meanwhile, the DR economy is coming to a screeching halt due to the electricity problems (forget about competing in a globalized world....our own internal economy is shutting down).

As for pleasing the U.S. - I'm not aware of any U.S. support for this purchase. Maybe I missed it.

However, I do find it ironic when my country pressures others to crack down on drugs while our own ballot initiatives are overwhelmingly decriminalizing drugs (at least marijuana). Massachusetts has decriminalized an ounce or less while a roach could get you two years in Victoria down here.

RHM

 

[JRMirador]

Randy, your perspective is correct, and I would add that it's unjust to suggest that corruption is limited to the DR, a humble way station in the drug trade superhighway, which begins in Colombia, and ends in the US and Europe. The major players in the trade, Colombia and the US, are in fact more corrupt than the DR. Take, for instance, Plan Colombia, which since its inception has increased cocaine production two fold. It is not unfair to suggest that the DEA is also infected with corruption.

 

[catcherintherye]

"It is not unfair to suggest that the DEA is also infected with corruption."

Who would be in a better position to "control" the drug trade?

I believe all but the very few who still think the US gubmint does no wrong understands who reaps the profits from the drug trade.

A larger question remains however. What is it that weakens and corrupts people to the point of creating a dependence on drugs? In my opinion, if there were no demand, there would be no drug trade.

The vast demand for drugs in the US and Europe indicates to me a vast decline in the moral underpinnings of Western civilization. So I am left wondering, what is causing that decline.

If anyone has an explanation I would like very much to hear it.

Please be clear that I am not equating morals with any religious beliefs. They are two very separate issues, as far as I am concerned. Some of the most morally correct people I know are without a belief in organized religions, and some of the most immoral bastards in the world are very well connected to any number of religious organizations.

All the best drug interdiction planes in the world are not going to effectively turn the present tide of moral decline. It is going to take something much more fundamental.

 

[RHM]

According to Catcher:

"(1) What is it that weakens and corrupts people to the point of creating a dependence on drugs? In my opinion, if there were no demand, there would be no drug trade.

(2) The vast demand for drugs in the US and Europe indicates to me a vast decline in the moral underpinnings of Western civilization. So I am left wondering, what is causing that decline.

(3) All the best drug interdiction planes in the world are not going to effectively turn the present tide of moral decline. It is going to take something much more fundamental."

My humble reply:

Forgive me while I dust off my libertarian soap box and leap onto it.

(1) It's not about weakness. People like altered states - always have, always will. Drug "use" is not a problem, drug "abuse" is - like the difference between alcohol "use" and "abuse." Someone who has a few drinks now and then poses no threat to society, whereas someone who is a flat out non-functioning alcoholic presents a number of problems to his/her family and community. The same goes for drugs. There are plenty of mature adults who "use" but don't "abuse." Thus, I (personally) don't see it as a moral issue but rather one of personal responsibility.

(2) Obviously ! Without the customers there would be no distributors. But it's very important to recognize that the U.S had a national addiction rate of about 2% before prohibition. And now? 2%. The war on drugs has accomplished nothing. Need references? PM me.....I'll send you a gazillion.

(3) We will never, ever, ever to be able to even stem the tide. Ever. Did I say ever? Yeah, I meant ever. So, it doesn't matter how fundamental we get with our policies. It will always be around.

So, what's the solution? I'd say to just treat all drugs the same as we do alcohol. Educate our kids to know about the pros and cons and emphasize personal responsibility.

Most of these substances should be legalized but that will (for the most part) never happen because we see drugs as the boogey man. I think that's the wrong approach.

I assume that the overwhelming majority of us on DR1 do not take heroin. Why? Because it's illegal? Of course not. If we wanted it we could find it. We don't do it because it's stupid. Thus, legalizing drugs would probably not result in a huge spike in use (at least not for the long term). It's not the law that keeps me from shooting up.

Done. Now I'm all ears.

* I am writing from Parque Conde in the Colonial Zone.


PS: The cold German beer here is the next best thing! I highly recommend this place for people who like a laid-back atmosphere.

RHM

 

[tflea]

Agree

I guess we use the same brand of soap.

 

[Robert]

Nice one Mr. RHM. That just about sums up my thoughts.

 

[catcherintherye]

Since RHM has taken the time to respond, he deserves a thoughtful answer.

I am not completely clear as to how, why or even if, RHM's comments were intended to be an argument in opposition to my post. However, his post does appear to have been offered for that purpose, so let the non-debate begin.

I won't enumerate in quite the same fashion as my friend RHM (first name omitted for security reasons), and I will be brief and succinct.

To me, personal responsibility is a basic component of a sound personal moral and value system. To differentiate between the two is simply semantics.

I agree that the 'war on drugs' has done nothing to reduce drug use. In fact, I see this observation as being supportive of my hypothesis, that being interdiction and supply-side drug control in ineffective, and that demand-side intervention requires a thorough understanding of what factors actually facilitate drug use/abuse.

I hardly need the references, since I quite possibly drew on the same references as the basis for my statements.

I submit that the only way to stop drugs from having a negative impact on our society, is to legalize most drugs and offer educational and therapeutic counseling to those who are addicted or who's health has been affected.

Again, I see no fundamental differences between RHM's position and mine, but since he seems to think there is, I will continue this debate for as long as he finds it enjoyable.