Jump to content

AF Light Air Support Aircraft


Fud

Recommended Posts

Sooo...you say you've been out of the game for a couple of years and thus may not be familiar with the latest and greatest sh*t you can strap to a jet,

Yes, I say I've been out of the game for a few years. I do that for the purpose of full disclosure for the vast majority of the people on these boards who don't know who I am so that no one is confused that I'm trying to come off as some sort of full up MR ass kicker.

While I once was I'll never again be a SME on any of this shit. That does not mean I'm completely unfamiliar with the latest and greatest. I will not claim to be a SME because my criteria for what that means is quite high.

you want to have this discussion on an open forum, but want me to be more specific than to say that there's enough magic to helmetfire any human being? No thanks, that's my position and you can disagree.

Ok tough guy, cool your fucking jets and knock off the putting words in my mouth technique. We had someone else around here recently who liked to do that and they looked like a tool. You look like a tool now, too.

I do not want you to discuss anything of a classified nature and I never said I did. WTF is wrong with you?

You pulled out the classified card and I responded with one fucking word. That is not an invitation or a taunt to spill your guts.

I'm not falling for the argument that there is too much shit for one person to handle in this situation. I'm not discounting your experience but it is limited to a world of strap ons and a rush to get something into the field to fill a gap. It is possible to integrate systems to the point where one person can manage what once took more than one.

Not sure why you can't understand that when there is so much supporting precedent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You pulled out the classified card and I responded with one fucking word. That is not an invitation or a taunt to spill your guts.

You said "please" as in, "please SNAP, you're full of sh*t." Based on the limits of the forum I'm unable to further expand on my reasoning. That's what I thought anyways. Whatever, I'll just drop it.

I'm not falling for the argument that there is too much shit for one person to handle in this situation. I'm not discounting your experience but it is limited to a world of strap ons and a rush to get something into the field to fill a gap.

I guess I don't expect you to change your mind, I'm just putting out an alternate point of view to the "one pilot maximum" mindset. You may know what some of my experiences are, but if you think it's all still rush rush throw something together you really are out of the loop.

It is possible to integrate systems to the point where one person can manage what once took more than one.

Absolutely. Hell, it's possible to integrate systems to a point where zero people can manage what once took more than one. The trend is to less personnel and more automation and that's generally worked out well for us and I'm not diluted into thinking all of our jobs can't be turned into robots one day.

However, is full automation desired in all mission sets? No. Likewise, is a single-seat desired in all mission sets? I say no to that as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Then why are there plenty of planes rolling off the assembly lines right now and still being designed that have Nav/EWO/WSOs in them?

Ugh.

On topic, I thought we were talking about light attack aircraft.

All the non-slick J-model Herks have CSO stations (Nav, EWO, and in the new Gunship FCO). Most have multiple.

Different missions and platforms.

Navy is still buying plenty of F-18F's and EA-18G's

Good idea. Let's do what the Navy does.

RC-135s are the most rebuilt/upgraded planes in the inventory and they have both Navs and EWOs

Oh, ok...are we talking about using them as light attack jets now?

Some countries are even ordering two seat F-16s (and no not for training), including the F-16I.

Yes, for reasons different than why we are buying light attack airplanes.

When Lockheed was designing a new 'regional bomber' based on the YF-23, it had a back seat

And you're saying we should be using bombers as light attack aircraft?

There are some applications where a non-pilot crew member is a benefit.

Of course.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Shack. I hate drones more than everybody on this board put together. That said, they are very good at doing what they were built for: flying around in a circle and waiting for Haji to come out of his house and poop. You don't need pilots to sit there for 8 hours and watch a drawing of a pink airplane while punching themselves in the sack.

I completely agree with you. The only argument I have is that I believe that I vehemently detest drones more than you. I fantasize about shooting one everyday with my rifle (during its LR ops).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whatever, I'll just drop it.

2

I guess I don't expect you to change your mind, I'm just putting out an alternate point of view to the "one pilot maximum" mindset.

I'm not trying to change your mind at all. I'm just letting you know my opinion because you asked for it. Nothing more or less.

You may know what some of my experiences are, but if you think it's all still rush rush throw something together you really are out of the loop.

Actually, I don't really know your experience at all. I'm making some assumptions and making inferences from your comments based on those assumptions. That is not fair but it's difficult to do otherwise on an internet forum, right?

To be clear, I'm not intending to disrespect you.

FWIW, while I may well be "really out of the loop" I know it's not all rush rush throw something together. In fact, I am arguing that it is going the other direction overall and hence the number of people required is declining and the amount of SA per person is increasing with integration.

Ultimately, budgets and budget priorities dictate how much off the shelf strap it on and let the guys figure it out happens.

However, is full automation desired in all mission sets? No. Likewise, is a single-seat desired in all mission sets? I say no to that as well.

Copy. I'm only talking about the mission sets in question. I have some experience with those mission sets and to those I say yes.

Edited by Rainman A-10
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh, ok...are we talking about using them as light attack jets now?

YEaaaahhh!! Man, I can't wait until that syllabus gets approved, I'm gonna love flying the RJ down low & raining hate on the--

um, what? sarcasm? you sure...? Damn.... :darkcloud:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Entire post.

Copy all and agree. I certainly have no experience in actually flying light attack so your opinions are very valuable even if there's room for argument one way or the other.

Edited by nsplayr
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ugh.

On topic, I thought we were talking about light attack aircraft.

Different missions and platforms.

My apologies, I thought your statement was meant as a general statement and did not realize you were specifically referring to Light Attack.

Disregard previous post, I'm an idiot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My apologies, I thought your statement was meant as a general statement and did not realize you were specifically referring to Light Attack.

Disregard previous post, I'm an idiot.

Don't be so hard on yourself. You're not really an idiot since my general statement is that navs have no legitimate purpose, as far as I can tell...especially since Mather closed. It would've been easy to misinterpret what I was saying.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From a MX POV. If the AT-6 is selected for anybody in the forum in the know, would it have to be built up i.e. F-15C compared to F-15E. Uprated engines, stronger wing,landing gear? Would all AT-6's be 2 seaters, eliminate instructor seat gives more room for gas,comm,ammo, targeting. Would be a wing mounted gun like a 20MM or .50cal or underwing pod. Will they replace the canopy with a up and down version or keep the side opening? Will the prop be up armored? Wing mounted or EA-6b probe for air refueling? A-10 armored cockpit? Boy it sounds like a cost overun waiting to happen, don't it. Maybe it might be a good idea to pull T-37B's out of AMARC and reengine them with J-85's like the AT-37B, T-38 and F-5.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From a MX POV. If the AT-6 is selected for anybody in the forum in the know, would it have to be built up i.e. F-15C compared to F-15E. Uprated engines, stronger wing,landing gear? Would all AT-6's be 2 seaters, eliminate instructor seat gives more room for gas,comm,ammo, targeting. Would be a wing mounted gun like a 20MM or .50cal or underwing pod. Will they replace the canopy with a up and down version or keep the side opening? Will the prop be up armored? Wing mounted or EA-6b probe for air refueling? A-10 armored cockpit? Boy it sounds like a cost overun waiting to happen, don't it. Maybe it might be a good idea to pull T-37B's out of AMARC and reengine them with J-85's like the AT-37B, T-38 and F-5.

All these questions requre a detailed requirements review; what do you want the aircraft to do??? According to the last statements by the CSAF its an aircraft to be used in developing countries as a trainer, COIN, ISR, and possibly light strike aircraft. That means two seats for sure, weapons capable (but exact placement not specified), and sufficient electrical and engine power to do the job. I think the AT-6 meets the basic criteria, as do several other aircraft, but until the details are published, its hard to say. In the case of the AT-6, I think that is already designed into it (uprated from the basic T-6A).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Ponis

This may be good news for UPT dudes operating RPAs. Supposedly there are zero (0) fighters going to the 38 dudes, so this may be a viable alternative. Hell I'll sign up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Random sighting of an AT-6 in Duluth yesterday. Not sure what brings them this far North? Shitty picture I know.

post-1883-0-96260000-1311362223_thumb.jp

Returning from a trip to Europe...he had four wing bags and set a new record for the T-6 with a non-stop flight from Iceland to Duluth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ProSuper makes some good points. Why would you want to buy 100 over-sized bug smashers with a single engine..a propeller..marginal armour...possibly air re-fuelable (with a C-130?)...slow if not impossible to deploy any distance. No doubt the same amount of maintenance effort for a fraction of the strike power. Might as well have a helicopter gun ship. Buy something big with lots of room for bombs..bullets..armour..gas AND packed with all of the drone electronics needed for tactics and doctrine as it develops. Ideally you could deploy a whole flight remotely. Once the pilot hops in the "backseater" might be anywhere. (hey..It's the future..I don't like it either)

................Lieutenant, that perfume is enchanting...now go fetch my flak jacket......

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

...not sure a big airplane or a remotely-piloted one is the right fit for this mission with today's technology. Big is definitely not required and remote is probably the future of many things but it'll take a while to overcome the limitations of the systems for effective use in CAS beyond popping off a hellfire or dropping a LGB. There are plenty of advantages of having a low cost and small MX footprint, especially if you parlay that into more platforms for the money vs the all your eggs in one basket approach.

Edited by nsplayr
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

got to fly the AT-6 a few times during an eval at DM last year. nice plane and some good capability. not sure where everything stands now on acquisition, etc. Beechcraft was working pretty hard to get it sold.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To quote my old DO, on any matter pertaining to getting new anything...'never gonna happen' LOL.

Unless it's extra HDTVs in the lobby to infinitely loop PPT slides that nobody looks at. Plenty of money for that, apparently. You'd think those effing things were an MWS.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...