AF Light Air Support Aircraft

[nsplayr]

Hey man I totally agree. There are lots of heavy dudes out there doing great things. I was just noting that there are quite a few heavy guys out there who can't (or choose not to) see much outside their world.

Yea, cheers to that

As much as it sounds like BS, I've definitely come to more greatly appreciate what other communities do on a daily basis the longer I'm in the AF. As much as I like to give pilots and especially pointy-nose dudes sh*t, I give much respect the guys who are out there actually killing the enemy for a living.

Edited July 16, 2011 by nsplayr

[HiFlyer]

Getting back to the original subject (Congress' current interest in Light Attack) I have to say that I'm kind of in the two-seat camp. Why do I think so? Because I've done all that. I've got over 250 combat mission flying the OV-10 in a COIN/CAS/light attack role. Sometimes by myself, sometimes with Army intel guys along, or Army SF guys wanting to check out an old camp to see its condition prior to a re-insertion, or locals flying as observers to point out inappropriate things on the ground back in the bush and speak the local language to units on the ground (things that should or shouldn't be there under the current conditions), or local commanders/ops officers trying to get a perspective of their AO from the FAC/CAS pilot's point of view. The fact is that we're not buying these for the AF to use in a primary CAS or air-to-air role...we're considering it as a SOF and foreign AF trainer/light attack/COIN aircraft, where we bring them in, teach the locals how to fly them, operate with them for a while, then mostly leave them when we go (except maybe for the hard core SOF missions). As an example, think of the F-5s in the 1970s, when the only USAF squadron was the training squadron at Williams (4441st TFS, I think), and the rest were owned by the locals and had USAF advisors/instructors flying with them as needed.

The aircraft they are talking about will mostly be used as advance flying trainers/combat trainers, and in a COIN role. They will have weapons, when appropriate, but also an FMV ball like the Reaper, perhaps some basic SIGINT gear, and maybe some other ISR gear for tracking targets and learning the local "day in the life" routine. That's a two-man mission, plain and simple. Is the second guy valuable? For most of these missions, absolutely. He can be either the trained sensor operator when the mission requires it (CSO type guy or even an enlisted sensor operator like the Pred/Reaper uses), or a local observer to help identify specific cultural issues, or a US ground-pounder who can key you to specific details of a target area, or a fast mover crewmember flying along to see the details of what is on the ground (hard to do at 450kts and 15,000 feet).

I'll let the rest of you fight the 1 or 2 seat fighter arguement..that's not my background...but for this mission, its handy to have another guy along to make all that magic stuff work.

[TrainerModel]

Here's some more fighting words to fuel the fire, I think AFSOC should own these assets (I'm selfishly biased). Ok, and...FIGHT!

[SurelySerious]

Here's some more fighting words to fuel the fire, I think AFSOC should own these assets (I'm selfishly biased). Ok, and...FIGHT!

You already have special ops fighter pilots, don't be greedy.

[HiFlyer]

Here's some more fighting words to fuel the fire, I think AFSOC should own these assets (I'm selfishly biased). Ok, and...FIGHT!

If the AF actually gets these aircraft (current Senate draft cuts $140M out for this program) and they are used as initially proposed, I suspect that AFSOC may get some because a lot of the third world mission is related to their work. On the other hand, simple FMS actions, like replacing the old OV-10s/A-37s now in use in several countries (Indonesia, RP, Columbia, etc.) would probably not be an AFSOC mission.

[Guest]

its handy to have another guy along to make all that magic stuff work.

Handy does not equal required.

The interfaces allow a single pilot to make all that magic stuff work today, no problem.

[brabus]

I'll also add that I've yet to see a single seat aircraft as capable as a multiseat aircraft. There is simply too much going on for one person to keep track; I've witnessed so many epic fails of dudes with one seat and one sensor and 1-3 radios thinking he can manage more than he can, or, whats worse, thinking what he has access to is the only piece that matters and needs managing.

And I've witnessed many epic fails of aircraft with more than one seat. I've also witnessed single seat aircraft do a far better job. More than one dude in the jet does not always equal more SA or ability...I've seen quite the opposite. And yes I've seen 2+ seat aircraft do awesome work. Yes, I've seen single seat aircraft fuck it away. None of us have a perfect sortie and sometimes you have a really shitty one. So no, I'm not shitting on aircraft w/ more than 1 seat or the dudes who fly them, but your one-sided statement is pretty ridiculous.

[Guest]

And I've witnessed many epic fails of aircraft with more than one seat.

Wait, what? No way.

How about the epic fail of the 10,000nm screwdriver where there are a couple hundred seats and every single person is a 0kts and 1G at 69 degrees with a hot cuppa joe and a donut?

[brabus]

How about the epic fail of the 10,000nm screwdriver where there are a couple hundred seats and every single person is a 0kts and 1G at 69 degrees with a hot cuppa joe and a donut?

That's always a fun one.

[nsplayr]

The interfaces allow a single pilot to make all that magic stuff work today, no problem.

I say it entirely depends on what they decide to strap to the airplane. The OV-10 has a TON of cargo room to put more radios, more data systems, etc. I've seen setups that are physically impossible for 1 man to run; can't do it even if you're some kind of Robin Olds/Maverick hybrid with 4 hands and giant brass balls. If you think we can't add enough magic to an airplane to overwhelm one person you haven't seen all the magic. Can a hog driver handle all the sensor/data/radio stuff in that jet, obviously yes, the whole system is designed to ensure that outcome.

Even beyond the argument that one dude can't handle all the stuff, which is debatable depending on the setup, training, and ability, hiflyer's argument that one dude shouldn't is perhaps more valid. Given the mission and given that the aircraft are already designed from the ground up with 2 seats, why would you seek to change that? Or is this all just a hypothetical argument of 1-seat versus 2-seat?

[ClearedHot]

Light Air Support (LAS) Contest Between AT-6 Texan II, Super Tucano Continues

The successful LAS bidder will provide not just airplanes but also turnkey training and logistics support. If the AT-6 is chosen, training will be carried out at Salina, Kan., the past home of Schilling Air Force Base. If the Super Tucano gets the nod, training will be conducted at Clovis, N.M., near Cannon Air Force Base... Vote AT-6!

Edited July 19, 2011 by ClearedHot

[nsplayr]

The successful LAS bidder will provide not just airplanes but also turnkey training and logistics support. If the AT-6 is chosen, training will be carried out at Salina, Kan., the past home of Schilling Air Force Base. If the Super Tucano gets the nod, training will be conducted at Clovis, N.M., near Cannon Air Force Base... Vote AT-6!

At least they got it right...cool platform at sh*tty bases. Despite Salina being in the middle of nowhere Kansas, sure sounds better than Canon! AT-6, USA, USA!

[hindsight2020]

Fuck, both the -6 and the Super T look sexy as hell. I'd love for them to spin that mission up. I'm partial to the Texan obviously, but the Tucanos are kicking ass down in South America and might prove an good bang for the buck.

Then again I get this feeling like this thing is never gonna happen. :( Just like the T-50 -38 replacement, or the 2018 bomber, et al ad neauseam. With this economy, in this decade, no way no how.

P.S. WTF Clovis for Tucano training?!?! The New Mexico Congressional delegation must have Czech hookers on the payroll 'cuz they keep that fucking shitty base on the roster like nobody's business. Talk about being hated by the entire penaut gallery and still getting first prize...What an unflickable booger that place is...

[Termy]

When I spoke with one of the lucky few who got to fly both aircraft, he said, "The Tucano is the obvious choice." In his assesment, it was simply more capable, proven, and able to operate from unimproved surfaces. The basing situation wasn't even being discussed when he flew them.

[Spur38]

http://www.builtforthemission.com/combat-proven.php

If you can look at the capability decision matrix for this airplane contest: For the LAS mission, the Super Tucano is the overwhelming winner! If the priorities come down to: "What's in the BX? Or "How large is the swimming pool and is the Golf Course in good condition? … Then go for the AT-6.

Rainman's description has it right! It should be an Army Fixed Wing mission!

The A-29 Super Tucano stands alone as the only combat-proven, mission ready and operational contender in the U.S. Air Force Light Air Support competition.

What differentiates the Super T from the competition:

•Clean sheet design: built for the mission, and optimized for the U.S. Air Force.

◦No adaptations or compromises necessary.

•173 A-29 Super Tucano aircraft in use today or on order.

•Ordered by the armed forces of seven nations.

•100,000 flight hours logged to date.

•16,000 combat hours without a loss.

•Highest weapons load in its class.

◦Five intelligent NATO hard points.

◦Two internal, wing-mounted .50-caliber machine guns: accuracy with no drag.

◦133 fully-qualified and operational weapons load configurations.

•Fourth-generation cockpit with HOTAS controls

•Fully-integrated FLIR thermal imaging system.

•Tested and requested by U.S. Navy for Operation Imminent Fury.

•Capable of routinely taking off and landing on rugged terrain.

•In production today, which means low customer acquisition costs; development costs are long-since paid for.

•Low operating costs.

•Longer airframe and larger rudder enable superior performance with high-torque 1,600 HP engine

•Retained best aspects of trainer without compromising on combat capability.

[Guest]

I say it entirely depends on what they decide to strap to the airplane.

Not what. How.

I've seen setups that are physically impossible for 1 man to run;

Like I said, how. Physically impossible is just that, physically impossible.

If you think we can't add enough magic to an airplane to overwhelm one person you haven't seen all the magic.

Please.

hiflyer's argument that one dude shouldn't is perhaps more valid.

It depends on what arguments shouldn't is based upon. Shouldn't "because it is difficult/complicated" is not a good argument...that perspective would stop us from doing most of what we all do every day.

Given the mission and given that the aircraft are already designed from the ground up with 2 seats, why would you seek to change that?

Not talking about changing the aircraft config. Also not saying you would never put someone in that seat. Just saying you don't need an additional required crewmember simply because there is another seat.

Or is this all just a hypothetical argument of 1-seat versus 2-seat?

Yes, both.

Just sayin'...

Edited July 19, 2011 by Rainman A-10

[Day Man]

Website quote

Let me guess...you would make money somehow if the A-29 won a contract?

[nsplayr]

I read the actual article CH posted and saw that SNC is behind the Super-T. Armed with that knowledge I really hope they get the contract. A-freaking-mazing maintenance and R&D support and they have a history of taking a small, foreign-built turboprops and doing great things with them. Many old-heads from multiple previous platforms say SNC provides the hands-down best MX they've ever worked with in their careers and that us young guys don't know how nice it is not to have to fight with MX constantly.

Please.

We'll agree to disagree. Not the proper forum to discuss this fully.

It depends on what arguments shouldn't is based upon. Shouldn't "because it is difficult/complicated" is not a good argument...that perspective would stop us from doing most of what we all do every day.

Not saying that, but there is merit to the argument that the mission the LAS would do is best supported by a two-seat platform. Giving credence to this argument is the fact that all the entrants in the program were two-seat platforms. I'm not making this up; ask hiflyer, I have no direct experience and therefore am not the most credible advocate for this position.

Not talking about changing the aircraft config. Also not saying you would never put someone in that seat. Just saying you don't need an additional required crewmember simply because there is another seat.

So you envision a situation where you would purposefully not take an in-house backseater who was purpose-trained for the platform? On a regular mission, not a mission where you're taking up the GFC or an ALO or something like that? Do tell why you would ever do that other than the one-off need for absolute maximum gas.

How many times does the mudhen fly a combat mission without the WSO? Maybe they do regularly and I'm suffering from low SA, please inform me if there is precedent for two-seat platforms flying with just 1 pilot on a regular basis in combat.

Sincerely, this isn't a pissing contest between 1- and 2-seaters, I'm not a fighter dude and have seen both varieties operate effectively; I just don't get why you would forgo a backseater (WSO, 2nd pilot, whatever) when the platform is designed from the ground up to have one on board...

[FlyingBull]

Two internal, wing-mounted .50-caliber machine guns: accuracy with no drag.

Uh....how does that not make the Super-T the automatic winner?

[HU&W]

Rainman's description has it right! It should be an Army Fixed Wing mission!

NO! But I don't agree with any Army FW other than RPA.

◦Two internal, wing-mounted .50-caliber machine guns: accuracy with no drag.

Yes - key.

I read the actual article CH posted and saw that SNC is behind the Super-T. Armed with that knowledge I really hope they get the contract.

Yes 100%

[guineapigfury]

50 cals sound sweet, but everyone who's entered UPT since about summer of 07 already knows how to fly the T-6. Whiting and ENJJPT dudes and dudettes excepted. Something that makes sense to think about as tie-breaker, so we probably won't. The real question is: which one carries napalm? I can't smell victory in the morning here where I'm at, unless victory smells disturbingly like human feces.

[Hacker]

50 cals sound sweet, but everyone who's entered UPT since about summer of 07 already knows how to fly the T-6. Whiting and ENJJPT dudes and dudettes excepted.

That's quite seriously not a benefit in any way which should influence the decision.

The stick-and-rudder aspect of flying the airplane is only about 10% of the mission...plus, unless those people are actually actively flying a T-6, they would require a requalification before being able to fly the hypothetical AT-6B.

In the fighter world, this non-tactical portion of the flying training is about 5 or 6 rides, even for a B-Course, before the Form 8 instrument check. Again, not exactly what you'd call any kind of significant benefit.

More significant would be the numbers of CAS and COIN experienced pilots who could enter the training pipeline, of which the other 90% of the training challenge consists of, and which it does not matter if the airplane is a Beechcraft or a Tucano.

The only somewhat benefit to buying the Beechcraft would be the ability to partially follow the established logistics system for the T-6, as well as economies of scale for the logistics system for the entire T-6 family of aircraft.

[ClearedHot]

The only somewhat benefit to buying the Beechcraft would be the ability to partially follow the established logistics system for the T-6, as well as economies of scale for the logistics system for the entire T-6 family of aircraft.

The value of the existing T-6 (and A-10), logistics system alone should pay for the program. The folks running the program know the game very well and by putting the A-10C package on the AT-6C they have made nearly every key component something that already exists in the USAF supply chain. I've flown the AT-6 and spent a lot of time with dudes who have flown the A29, there are pluses and minuses performance wise to both aircraft and for the most part I've remained agnostic as long as we get one or the other. Given the delay and the maturation of the AT-6C over the last year combined with the issues above, I think it best to go with AT-6C.

[HiFlyer]

I say it entirely depends on what they decide to strap to the airplane. The OV-10 has a TON of cargo room to put more radios, more data systems, etc. I've seen setups that are physically impossible for 1 man to run; can't do it even if you're some kind of Robin Olds/Maverick hybrid with 4 hands and giant brass balls. If you think we can't add enough magic to an airplane to overwhelm one person you haven't seen all the magic. Can a hog driver handle all the sensor/data/radio stuff in that jet, obviously yes, the whole system is designed to ensure that outcome.

Even beyond the argument that one dude can't handle all the stuff, which is debatable depending on the setup, training, and ability, hiflyer's argument that one dude shouldn't is perhaps more valid. Given the mission and given that the aircraft are already designed from the ground up with 2 seats, why would you seek to change that? Or is this all just a hypothetical argument of 1-seat versus 2-seat?

It also depends on how you define the mission. I think Rainman is thinking of the "Light Attack" mission more in terms of an "A/OA-10-type mission with a little gun", in which case he's probably right. On the other hand, my comment is based on the mission as more of a FAC/observation/ISR surveilliance/training mission with some weapons delivery capability if required...more the Vietnam-like OV-10 + manned Reaper mission model, or a even weaponized MC-12W mission. In the latter scenario, having one's head stuck in a video screen from the MX-15 FMV ball for several hours as you track a single HVT through village streets or to see where he goes from compound to compound is not very practical for a single seat version. I think the term "Light Attack" is a term more suitably attached to the SOF mission concept that the Navy was working; if I was to describe the broader mission I heard discussed I think the term is not accurate. This is the capability statement from the AT-6B info, which was more along the broader mission definition...

"...capable of performing missions including: net-centric ISR with the ability for precise geo-registration, streaming video and datalinks; light attack including combat search and rescue (CSAR), close air support, forward air control and convoy escort; homeland defence (border security), port security, and counter-narcotics operations; and civil missions such as disaster area reconnaissance, search and rescue, and firefighting."

However, even in the PR material for the various platforms the crew complement is described as "Minimum Crew - one pilot in front seat". For some missions you can do very well with just the front seater.

[sputnik]

We can't all be fighter pilots.

I got rid of photo, but SA low light fully illuminated. What's the story?