AF Light Air Support Aircraft

[Lawman]

Don't disagree that training cost could be higher and you're right LAAR would not be a good sparring partner for 5th gens - my sidebar comment on Golden Apples was for an expanded or established good deal program really one of several that could encourage retention and serve a valid operational or training requirement

An aggressor aircraft IMO could be a light fighter or LIFT jet - no turboprop or jet LAAR even could meet that requirement well


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

2 things....

If the goal of aggressor squadrons is to truly replicate any and all threats likely to be encountered when Air Forces around the world getting ready to field their own 5th gens...

And

Price of aircraft decreases with larger group buys and total cost of ownership decreases with less diverse fleets...

Why are we kidding ourselves or trying to buy some other aircraft instead of say... buying a stripped down version of the 35 which doesn't necessarily need as robust a mission capability but instead can go out there and replicate the worst day scenario of a LO threat in the Red Air playbook, or attach some radar reflective pylons and play Johnny 3rd-4th gen 4/5 days of the week? I feel like all buying some FA-50/Saab/etc trainer jet and trying to use it as an aggressor also is going to just lead us to the exact question of "ok now that PAK-FAs are everywhere how to we make a stealth aggressor" 10 years from now anyway.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[tac airlifter]

41 minutes ago, Ulysses said:

I heard some sort of rumor about old Nighthawks being fixed up and used as stealth aggressors. Any truth to that?

[Kiloalpha]

1 hour ago, Ulysses said:

I heard some sort of rumor about old Nighthawks being fixed up and used as stealth aggressors. Any truth to that?

Sent from my LG-H810 using Baseops Network Forums mobile app
 

Yep. They park them right next to the Roswell UFO and the PAK-FA we stole from the Russians.

[Clark Griswold]

13 hours ago, Lawman said:

2 things....

If the goal of aggressor squadrons is to truly replicate any and all threats likely to be encountered when Air Forces around the world getting ready to field their own 5th gens...

And

Price of aircraft decreases with larger group buys and total cost of ownership decreases with less diverse fleets...

Why are we kidding ourselves or trying to buy some other aircraft instead of say... buying a stripped down version of the 35 which doesn't necessarily need as robust a mission capability but instead can go out there and replicate the worst day scenario of a LO threat in the Red Air playbook, or attach some radar reflective pylons and play Johnny 3rd-4th gen 4/5 days of the week? I feel like all buying some FA-50/Saab/etc trainer jet and trying to use it as an aggressor also is going to just lead us to the exact question of "ok now that PAK-FAs are everywhere how to we make a stealth aggressor" 10 years from now anyway.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Valid point but methinks the money that Big Blue would be willing to allocate for an aggressor aircraft would probably not support a modified 35 for this role. 

An aggressor 35?  I'm not sure the design of the system (airframe, engines, avionics, etc..) could support a non-mission / ALIS based version.  It seems basically all completely integrated but I wonder if you could build this basic aggressor 35 on the test X-35 configuration vice the F-35. 

Take the test article design and see if you could get an LO'ish airframe, good performance and add capabilities you need to train or test against all while keeping the price in check, not easily done I'm sure but probably worth some research.

Edited April 1, 2017 by Clark Griswold
minor

[Lawman]

Valid point but methinks the money that Big Blue would be willing to allocate for an aggressor aircraft would probably not support a modified 35 for this role. 
An aggressor 35?  I'm not sure the design of the system (airframe, engines, avionics, etc..) could support a non-mission / ALIS based version.  It seems basically all completely integrated but I wonder if you could build this basic aggressor 35 on the test X-35 configuration vice the F-35. 
Take the test article design and see if you could get an LO'ish airframe, good performance and add capabilities you need to train or test against all while keeping the price in check, not easily done I'm sure but probably worth some research.

Even if you couldn't necessarily build a hot rod version (i.e. the Navy's old Vipers in the 80s). Not having to have it be fully mission robust you could set aside some of these early lot 35s and just PMC their support allocation. Keep them flying, even keep them air to air capable, but you're not anywhere near the priority of a line squadron with actual deployments to meet, that sort of thing.

With 35 price possibly dropping at some point below the 100 mil mark a few years out it just seems dumb to go about trying to find a 40-60 million dollar square peg to fit the hole while ignoring the one you have.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Clark Griswold]

Even if you couldn't necessarily build a hot rod version (i.e. the Navy's old Vipers in the 80s). Not having to have it be fully mission robust you could set aside some of these early lot 35s and just PMC their support allocation. Keep them flying, even keep them air to air capable, but you're not anywhere near the priority of a line squadron with actual deployments to meet, that sort of thing.

With 35 price possibly dropping at some point below the 100 mil mark a few years out it just seems dumb to go about trying to find a 40-60 million dollar square peg to fit the hole while ignoring the one you have.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Maybe but I wonder how far you can emulate the threat(s) using the same jet - there has to be a limit, having a completely different opponent using a different airframe, engine(s), radar, etc. has to have a direct training value and another I think for the opportunity to the community in developing their tacticians. Giving them an opportunity to plan and use a totally different system to challenge our TTPs, systems, etc.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ClearedHot]

9 hours ago, Clark Griswold said:

Maybe but I wonder how far you can emulate the threat(s) using the same jet - there has to be a limit, having a completely different opponent using a different airframe, engine(s), radar, etc. has to have a direct training value and another I think for the opportunity to the community in developing their tacticians. Giving them an opportunity to plan and use a totally different system to challenge our TTPs, systems, etc.

You guys have it backwards...the training value would not be for the 5th gen folks, it would be for seasoning hundreds of fighter pilots who could jump in a cheap jet that has all the switchology of a 5th gen and develop muscle memory and airmanship at the same time.

[Seriously]

49 minutes ago, ClearedHot said:

You guys have it backwards...the training value would not be for the 5th gen folks, it would be for seasoning hundreds of fighter pilots who could jump in a cheap jet that has all the switchology of a 5th gen and develop muscle memory and airmanship at the same time.

It's better than nothing, but red air isn't blue air. Even IPs returning from an aggressor tour, in the same jet no less, have significantly atrophied skills. If the air force goes this route (and they are already sending inexperienced guys to aggressor sq's now), they can't expect the same level of proficiency from their pilots. Like everything, it's a trade-off. 

[Clark Griswold]

3 hours ago, ClearedHot said:

You guys have it backwards...the training value would not be for the 5th gen folks, it would be for seasoning hundreds of fighter pilots who could jump in a cheap jet that has all the switchology of a 5th gen and develop muscle memory and airmanship at the same time.

No doubt an aggressor program would have that effect. 

My original sidebar on this was that an expanded aggressor program could be like a LAAR could be, a Golden Apple good deal program to serve a valid training / operational need and encourage retention by affording interesting / appealing opportunities that could keep X number of aircrew for the career vs. the separation inducing non-vol RPA / staff tour.

As to your comment on seasoning, switchology, airmanship development, completely agree.  I would not call it regressing to a lower level of aircraft/avionics/sensors/comm/etc.. but flying something that requires more attention, effort and care definitely builds the airmanship muscles that can atrophy.  A few years ago I was flying one aircraft for my civilian employer and one for the Guard, one was significantly more advanced than the other and just in flying the less advanced aircraft point A to point B a few times was a bit of airmanship workout that made me better at not being lulled by the fancy jet doing a lot for me.

Thinking outside the lines, if the resources could be found for it, a reasonable purchase of some of the inexpensive light fighters like JF-17, Tejas or Kfirs could fill this role.  A light fighter version T-X I am sure would be fine but it would be interesting / worthwhile to have some different horses in the stable to ride.

[Clark Griswold]

On the subject of Light Attack...

Article on the ARES concept from Rutan back in the 90s

http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/ares-the-light-attack-aircraft-america-needed-never-happened-19939

and a video:

 

[Clark Griswold]

Long article but worth the time:

https://warontherocks.com/2017/04/playing-moneyball-the-scouting-report-on-light-attack-aircraft/

Major Bier did the math.  

As discussed, the math is only part of the argument for a LAAR but a big part (sts) with others:  force development/sustainment, BPC, etc... but a well thought article on the subject of LAAR acquisition.

[xcraftllc]

You seem to really like these long articles Clark, you must have definitely been born before the '80s.

Interesting read, I'm not too sure about some of those costs and Pd though (I'm not at all saying this to argue one way or another about the topic). I'm pretty sure only a TP 30mm round would be as cheap as 20 bucks, and I think the Pd of a solid burst of 115 rds would be at least .8 or so. Also .50 cal should only be about 5 bucks a round and there's no way it's anywhere near a Pd of .5, maybe like .069 if you caught the guy taking a crap in the middle of a minefield. I've seen some pretty sorry Kiowa .50 cal video and they got way closer than an A-29 would (they used to literally shoot guys with their M-4s some times).

To my understanding, those Pds are based on the air-frames listed in the tables and whatever data the guy could get? Maybe an A-29 (assuming that's the plane he has data on) could do that kind of Pd with a .50 cal, but if the enemy in question has so much as a decent rock, piece of cement, or a tree to hide behind they're safe. I don't think there's anything short of a hardened bunker that 30x173 can't get past.

That last table seems to bring it all together nicely in support of the LAAR (it also quite interestingly puts the F-16 as more cost-effective than the A-10) but at the end of the day, you can't take a LAAR and destroy an entire column of tanks (A-10) or fight an air threat (F-16), and you sure aren't going to survive a modern SAM threat (F-35) so I think the brass is kinda giving it a bit less than a college try since it's not appealing for more serious threats. I kinda get the vibe that this whole light attack proposal isn't going to come to fruition, hell the AF can't even figure out how to buy a god damn helicopter to mull around missile silos right now. I'm just glad I'm not in their position trying to figure out how to procure anything these days.

Edited April 22, 2017 by xcraftllc
I don't grammar good.

[matmacwc]

On 3/31/2017 at 10:10 AM, Kiloalpha said:

Yep. They park them right next to the Roswell UFO and the PAK-FA we stole from the Russians.

Maybe......

 

[Sprkt69]

8 minutes ago, xcraftllc said:

You seem to really like these long articles Clark, you must have definitely been born before the '80s.

Interesting read, I'm not too sure about some of those costs and Pd though (I'm not at all saying this to argue one way or another about the topic). I'm pretty sure only a TP 30mm round would be as cheap as 20 bucks, and I think the Pd of a solid burst of 115 rds would be at least .8 or so. Also .50 cal should only be about 5 bucks a round and there's no way it's anywhere near a Pd of .5, maybe like .069 if you caught the guy taking a crap in the middle of a minefield. I've seen some pretty sorry Kiowa .50 cal video and they got way closer than an A-29 would (they used to literally shoot guys with their M-4s some times).

To my understanding, those Pds are based on the air-frames listed in the tables and whatever data the guy could get? Maybe an A-29 (assuming that's the plane he has data on) could do that kind of Pd with a .50 cal, but if the enemy in question has so much as a decent rock, piece of cement, or a tree to hide behind they're safe. I don't think there's anything short of a hardened bunker that 30x173 can't get past.

That last table seems to bring it all together nicely in support of the LAAR (it also quite interestingly puts the F-16 as more cost-effective than the A-10) but at the end of the day, you can't take a LAAR and destroy an entire column of tanks (A-10) or fight an air threat (F-16), and you sure around going to survive a modern SAM threat (F-35) so I think the brass is kinda giving it a bit less than a college try since it's not appealing for more serious threats. I kinda get the vibe that this whole light attack proposal isn't going to come to fruition, hell the AF can't even figure out how to buy a god damn helicopter to mull around missile silos right now. I'm just glad I'm not in their position trying to figure out how to procure anything these days.

It's not the job of LAAR to destroy an entire column of tanks, do anything A-A, or take on any meaningful S-A threat. Last I heard one of the great ideas for the aircraft will be as a buffer between UPT and the CAF to get grads some experience and help shorten the UPT timeline. So basically a money scheme that will help green up someone's slides while sending very young pilots into COIN warfare. 

As for procurement, a lot of issues stem from empires and kingdoms, or bureaucracy and a VIP culture that gets in the way of progress. Your pilot that busts their ass trying to get the program running has to brief a non pilot, who then briefs another non pilot, who them briefs other non pilots who then briefs the SECAF and maybe SECDEF as well as the purse holders who are all non pilots. Now you can see how the game of telephone and agendas really help out the operators.

[Clark Griswold]

1 hour ago, xcraftllc said:

You seem to really like these long articles Clark, you must have definitely been born before the '80s.

Interesting read, I'm not too sure about some of those costs and Pd though (I'm not at all saying this to argue one way or another about the topic). I'm pretty sure only a TP 30mm round would be as cheap as 20 bucks, and I think the Pd of a solid burst of 115 rds would be at least .8 or so. Also .50 cal should only be about 5 bucks a round and there's no way it's anywhere near a Pd of .5, maybe like .069 if you caught the guy taking a crap in the middle of a minefield. I've seen some pretty sorry Kiowa .50 cal video and they got way closer than an A-29 would (they used to literally shoot guys with their M-4s some times).

To my understanding, those Pds are based on the air-frames listed in the tables and whatever data the guy could get? Maybe an A-29 (assuming that's the plane he has data on) could do that kind of Pd with a .50 cal, but if the enemy in question has so much as a decent rock, piece of cement, or a tree to hide behind they're safe. I don't think there's anything short of a hardened bunker that 30x173 can't get past.

That last table seems to bring it all together nicely in support of the LAAR (it also quite interestingly puts the F-16 as more cost-effective than the A-10) but at the end of the day, you can't take a LAAR and destroy an entire column of tanks (A-10) or fight an air threat (F-16), and you sure aren't going to survive a modern SAM threat (F-35) so I think the brass is kinda giving it a bit less than a college try since it's not appealing for more serious threats. I kinda get the vibe that this whole light attack proposal isn't going to come to fruition, hell the AF can't even figure out how to buy a god damn helicopter to mull around missile silos right now. I'm just glad I'm not in their position trying to figure out how to procure anything these days.

Maybe I remember the 70s... well, as a little kid but 40 is in the rearview mirror... 

His mathematical analysis is fine and he acknowledges his assumptions/blind spots for the sake of writing a consumable in one sitting article.

Thought the comparison of precision vs. direct fire systems was not flawed but likely required further nuance, probably a further separation based on what type of kinetic effect was usually called and number of effects called for in one engagement.

Hopefully the take aways is in the data analysis for the economic exchange expressed in cost per DPI, total flight hour cost and the highlighting of the historical rate of kinetic action being about 7 percent per OEF sortie will make the powers that be realize this is a marathon, not a sprint and should be prosecuted with equipment designed as such.

You may be right.  This could just be smoke and mirrors to look like they are really considering a LAAR when in reality the fix is in but one can hope.  As he said, the capability to be acquired is additive in nature, not displacing.  A LAAR has a role separate from conventional / existing Strike aircraft.

The last point (AF not willing to commit resources to acquiring a LAAR) has made me think if so then who should have this mission?  

Taking that idea and extending it; is COIN, LIC, etc... something a conventional military force should be assigned?  Is this the time to form an American Foreign Legion or similar organization as a separate branch / autonomous corps to have this and potentially other red headed step children?

[xcraftllc]

9 hours ago, Clark Griswold said:

...this is a marathon, not a sprint...

...is COIN, LIC, etc... something a conventional military force should be assigned?  Is this the time to form an American Foreign Legion or similar organization as a separate branch / autonomous corps to have this and potentially other red headed step children?

For sure, it's unreal to think how long the fight has been going on and will continue to (The DuffleBlog shacked it as usual): http://www.duffelblog.com/2017/04/american-public-learns-still-fighting-afghanistan-pentagon-drops-huge-bomb/

Oh no I don't think we'll ever loose the coin/CAS mission, but wish I could say the same about the budgetary interest on the subject, the leadership is having a hard enough time right now just trying to get rid of this "continuing resolution" mindset that acts like we're just about done figuring out Afghanistan and will soon be leaving or something.

[nsplayr]

Re: the article Clark posted...low-cost direct fire is great and all except that the GFCs want single-pass clean kills in very small windows of opportunity. Taking multiple strafing runs to kill a target, while much more cost effective, isn't going to fly IMHO. This is the driving force behind PGM use and why A-10 dudes don't get to use the gun as often as they would like. The necessary innovation to break the upward cost spiral needs to happen in the lower-cost PGM space, a la APKWS, as well as in volume discounts for things like the Griffin, SGM, SDB, etc. Honestly laser weapons are the ultimate low-cost, endlessly renewable, zero-time-of-flight, low-CDE weapon we all really want and need for precision strike against soft targets.

Re: needing a separate COIN/LIC command...it's almost as if we need a component of the Air Force that's not undertaking conventional operations. Perhaps we could call this newfangled type of deal "special" operations? IDK, just throwing spaghetti against the wall here...

If we can create that at scale, man, what a place to stick a light attack fleet!

Edited April 22, 2017 by nsplayr

[SurelySerious]

Re: the article Clark posted...low-cost direct fire is great and all except that the GFCs want single-pass clean kills in very small windows of opportunity. Taking multiple strafing runs to kill a target, while much more cost effective, isn't going to fly IMHO. This is the driving force behind PGM use and why A-10 dudes don't get to use the gun as often as they would like. The necessary innovation to break the upward cost spiral needs to happen in the lower-cost PGM space, a la APKWS, as well as in volume discounts for things like the Griffin, SGM, SDB, etc. Honestly laser weapons are the ultimate low-cost, endlessly renewable, zero-time-of-flight, low-CDE weapon we all really want and need for precision strike against soft targets.
Re: needing a separate COIN/LIC command...it's almost as if we need a component of the Air Force that's not undertaking conventional operations. Perhaps we could call this newfangled type of deal "special" operations? IDK, just throwing spaghetti against the wall here...
If we can create that at scale, man, what a place to stick a light attack fleet!

And then we'll put that special operations in the most special part of America.

[Sprkt69]

33 minutes ago, SurelySerious said:

And then we'll put that special operations in the most special part of America.

Ah Clovistan, where there is a friend behind every tree and the air is just so refreshing

[Clark Griswold]

3 hours ago, nsplayr said:

Re: needing a separate COIN/LIC command...it's almost as if we need a component of the Air Force that's not undertaking conventional operations. Perhaps we could call this newfangled type of deal "special" operations? IDK, just throwing spaghetti against the wall here...

If we can create that at scale, man, what a place to stick a light attack fleet!

AFSOC would be my choice of MAJCOM for a LAAR but I'm referring to the entirety of COIN operations and efforts.  

We need a new or repurposed USG agency to serve as the lead agency when the USG commits resources, not just military, to a COIN-Recovery-Stabilization-Rebuilding Whole of Government mission.

Not quibbling with you but looking at the doctrinal definition of Special Operation:

Special operations are operations requiring unique modes of employment, tactical techniques, equipment and training often conducted in hostile, denied, or politically sensitive environments and characterized by one or more of the following: time sensitive, clandestine, low visibility, conducted with and/or through indigenous forces, requiring regional expertise, and/or a high degree of risk. 

https://doctrine.af.mil/download.jsp?filename=3-05-D02-SOF-Spec-Ops-Defined.pdf

LAAR or SCAR may not exactly fit the "special" of Special Ops, it is just that they (the MAJCOM) is just as a community open minded and not threatened by a LAAR to their traditional missions/platforms.

Edited April 22, 2017 by Clark Griswold
link added / grammar fixed

[nsplayr]

4 hours ago, Clark Griswold said:

We need a new or repurposed USG agency to serve as the lead agency when the USG commits resources, not just military, to a COIN-Recovery-Stabilization-Rebuilding Whole of Government mission.

Sure, it's Tom Barnett's Leviathan & SysAdmin concept from "The Brief" and the follow-on book The Pentagon's New Map circa 2004.

I read it at the time and while he put together a series of thoughts worth publishing and that made a splash in the DoD intelligentsia, his ideas weren't exactly brand new either. It's 13 years later and out of a marathon of needed change, we're maybe 3-4 total steps closer to having a real SysAdmin force so I'm not holding my breath.

I'm just hoping light attack ends up in AFSOC. As you said, they're probably the least likely to fuck it up due to bureaucratic, doctrinal or tribal resistance to new concepts.

Edited April 23, 2017 by nsplayr

[busdriver]

9 hours ago, nsplayr said:

The necessary innovation to break the upward cost spiral needs to happen in the lower-cost PGM space, a la APKWS, as well as in volume discounts for things like the Griffin, SGM, SDB, etc.

APKWS isn't low cost.  It just a different production line.  We're dropping PGMs as fast as they can be made.

[brabus]

It's about the lowest cost PGM we got going for us so far.  Not saying it's not overpriced like everything else, but what's cheaper and still has utility for the mission set nsplayr is talking about?

[busdriver]

I don't have the actual numbers handy or anything, but all up round cost is similar to a GBU-38.

It's a super handy weapon, but it's not a low cost solution.

[Clark Griswold]

3 hours ago, nsplayr said:

Sure, it's Tom Barnett's Leviathan & SysAdmin concept from "The Brief" and the follow-on book The Pentagon's New Map circa 2004.

I read it at the time and while he put together a series of thoughts worth publishing and that made a splash in the DoD intelligentsia, his ideas weren't exactly brand new either. It's 13 years later and out of a marathon of needed change, we're maybe 3-4 total steps closer to having a real SysAdmin force so I'm not holding my breath.

I'm just hoping light attack ends up in AFSOC. As you said, they're probably the least likely to fuck it up due to bureaucratic, doctrinal or tribal resistance to new concepts.

Copy that and thanks for the reference - had heard/read the idea of this force/organization before but could not reference exactly where.  

Given where national & international politics is generally heading, the SysAdmin is likely a generation away, if ever.  I lean towards favoring it to be formed but with a lot of reservations as I am not for paper tigers conjured up just to show we are doing "something."

On the subject of cheaper PGMs, the Russians are trying to build a better mousetrap and may have had some success with their SVP-24 system.  Basically, a very accurate (purportedly) automatic bombing system to drop unguided munitions in a very tight and thereby accurate window (3-5m CEP claimed).

http://nationalinterest.org/feature/did-russia-really-build-smarter-smart-bomb-15484

As all things on the net, caveat emptor.

Gonking on their concept, what if you were able to eliminate some or all of the guidance unit on the munition and only have a kit for flight/glide control to the target with a data link from the platform giving course corrections to put the munition on the DPI?

Know your aircraft position down to 0.69 MGRS and release the remotely updated "PGM" during its glide using a cheap(er) beacon on the bomb to gauge its actual performance to the computed solution, adjust as required and then voila, freedom delivered at a lower cost by the minimization of expensive sensors on a one way trip.

Edited April 23, 2017 by Clark Griswold
grammar fix