AF Light Air Support Aircraft

[pbar]

http://thestrategybridge.org/the-bridge/2017/3/9/the-price-of-payload-light-attack-for-pennies-on-the-pound  Good article on light strike, written by an assistant district attorney in Texas.  Sad that a random lawyer seems to have a better grasp of this issue than our generals.

[HU&W]

8 minutes ago, pbar said:

http://thestrategybridge.org/the-bridge/2017/3/9/the-price-of-payload-light-attack-for-pennies-on-the-pound  Good article on light strike, written by an assistant district attorney in Texas.  Sad that a random lawyer seems to have a better grasp of this issue than our generals.

Fascinating argument.  It would be interesting to run his argument with SCLs instead of max capacities.  Of course, the amount of boom you bring to the fight isn't everything, but it is something.

[xcraftllc]

I'm still thinking the problem with such a program is more along the lines of producing/training pilots and maintainers for the aircraft, as well as places to put them, not to mention all the policies/paperwork and logistics that go along with creating a new air frame (especially if you need a CSO for every one). Is the consensus that this will be an AFSOC thing like the U-28? If that's the case it just might work, if not, all I can think is that it would probably be a lot easier just to take whatever money would be earmarked for this, bring the A-10 up to modern standards, have Boeing SLEP the fleet (maybe an A-10"D" with better engines?) and call it a day until all the F-35/KC-46/B-21/T-X/H-X stuff is figured out.

[nsplayr]

Agreed manning would be the main issue, especially as people head for the door. 

If the platform does have CSOs, which it looks like it will, it would be an extremely popular option but the manning pool is small. 

There are soemthing like 2K CSOs on AD. No way that pool can support the McCain pipe dream of 300x tails. Even a U-28 sized community would be a lift...that new platform alone ate up what, like 160 CSOs at a time maybe? Damn near 10% of all CSOs in existence. Not sure where those extra dudes come from unless you cut manning in other platforms if you do even that modest effort again. 300x tails at reasonable crew manning would be 1/2 the force...

Let alone pilots, many of whom have excellent options on the outside right now...

I'm still a huge fan. Would be a great mission, something the AF should have been doing way more of all along, and if it requires more $$ and manning then so be it, let Congress appropriate it. 

[ATIS]

54 minutes ago, nsplayr said:

Agreed manning would be the main issue, especially as people head for the door. 

If the platform does have CSOs, which it looks like it will, it would be an extremely popular option but the manning pool is small. 

There are soemthing like 2K CSOs on AD. No way that pool can support the McCain pipe dream of 300x tails. Even a U-28 sized community would be a lift...that new platform alone ate up what, like 160 CSOs at a time maybe? Damn near 10% of all CSOs in existence. Not sure where those extra dudes come from unless you cut manning in other platforms if you do even that modest effort again. 300x tails at reasonable crew manning would be 1/2 the force...

Let alone pilots, many of whom have excellent options on the outside right now...

I'm still a huge fan. Would be a great mission, something the AF should have been doing way more of all along, and if it requires more $$ and manning then so be it, let Congress appropriate it. 

Need to call in the Navy.  Sure worked well for the U-28 till it turned all-blue.

ATIS

[SurelySerious]

Need to call in the Navy.  Sure worked well for the U-28 till it turned all-blue.
ATIS

This Navy?
http://www.defensenews.com/articles/grounded-nearly-two-thirds-of-us-navys-strike-fighters-cant-fly

[ATIS]

1 hour ago, SurelySerious said:

This Navy?
http://www.defensenews.com/articles/grounded-nearly-two-thirds-of-us-navys-strike-fighters-cant-fly

My most humble and heartfelt apology, I should have been more clear.

I meant to say the Naval Aviators that manned the U-28 [CSO position] when it first came into your inventory, for at least 3+ years, until the first USAF blue suit CSO came into the TOC (very sharp dude I might add).  

Namaste

ATIS

[viper154]

How about enlisted sensors? It puts much more on the pilot having a back seater that knows minimal aviation knowledge, but I don't need a guy in the back telling me how to fly if he has the ISR taken care of. Basically how current RPA ops work. Our LRE sensors go thought a steep learning curve, but of the good ones make it through the program they can be helpful with the flying/backing up the pilot. You could get a sensor through a condensed IFS syllabus to teach basics of flying in a month, and a B course in 5-6 months. Take some crossflow RPA sensors that understand strike and you could probably get them qual'd in under 4 months. Much less time than the 2+ years to get a CSO (plus college) ready. Plus, how many CSOs ever touch a aircraft sensor before their B course? Just what I am told, but a AC-130 buddy of mine tells me that the RPA sensors straight from Holloman are much better at doing sensor things than the CSOs they get from IQT.

 

Personally I think a light attack asset would be a great aircraft to pair with both our ACC/AFSOC RPA fleet. You have the RPAs for the constant ISR, and high in the stack for the strike/op, and your light attack on call at a near by airfield in XXXshitholeXXX country. Shit goes down get the light attack in the air to clean up the mess, or provide more than 4 hellfires and a GBU 12 for the strike/op. 

 

Potential for dual qual'd crews in MQ-9s and light attack X, and provide that manned flying for those of us 11s stuck in droids. I think a bigger hurdle would be convincing the powers that be to let T-1 trained guys that have been flying RPAs in a 2 seat attack plane. (we would have the back seater get ATIS) Just a thought. Curious what the peanut gallery has to say. My experience in making things go boom is all from a remote perspective. 

 

Edited March 9, 2017 by viper154
can't pass a english/typing class

[nsplayr]

Without getting into the officer vs enlisted beat-around-the-bush, not saying right or wrong, but name one ejection-seat aircraft that flys with enlisted dudes. I can't thinking off the top...

I would bet the farm this platform, if it happened at all, will be crewed by an officer pilot and officer CSO/WSO/whateverjust like the strike eagle, bone, buff, hornet, growler, etc.

Manning issues will either be overcome via time and money, or the fleet will be small, or some combination of the two . 

[ATIS]

3 hours ago, viper154 said:

 but I don't need a guy in the back telling me how to fly if he has the ISR taken care of.

 

At the risk of pissing off the single seat folks in the room, this statement is very short sighted. 

Two cubes of ice....or just one, tough choice tonight.

ATIS

[viper154]

2 hours ago, ATIS said:

At the risk of pissing off the single seat folks in the room, this statement is very short sighted. 

Two cubes of ice....or just one, tough choice tonight.

ATIS

I think my statement may have come off the wrong way, I never have and most likely never will be a single seat guy, except the 4.5 hours in the mighty T-6. Sure, as a crew I respect that every crew member has a place in the jet, a job to do, and is part of accomplishing the mission. What I was getting at is that the front seater doesn't need the guy in the back to have a year of training flying instruments, and doing whatever else gets accomplished at full up nav training. Either way cheers, try those fancy marble stones, gives your drink a nice chill without the watering down of a fine beverage. 

 

nsplayr, I can't name one, I doubt it will happen, just a thought. So called wise men also thought a airplane could never sink a ship or be a useful strike tool. Just a outside the box thought.  Also not interested in the O v E fight, both sides have argued ad nausea in other spots on this forum. 

[Clark Griswold]

13 hours ago, pbar said:

http://thestrategybridge.org/the-bridge/2017/3/9/the-price-of-payload-light-attack-for-pennies-on-the-pound  Good article on light strike, written by an assistant district attorney in Texas.  Sad that a random lawyer seems to have a better grasp of this issue than our generals.

Good article.  

One most insightful line:

An A-29 will simply not arrive on station as quickly as an F-15, survive contested airspace like an F-22, or have the situational awareness of an F-35; nor does it need to.

This simple obvious fact that not every aircraft has to be supersonic, LO and the pinnacle of capabilities can't be grasped or publicly acknowledged by leadership hell bent on enabling the MIC to sell us what they want to (big ticket high profit on sale and service) vice what we actually need.

Some want to sell us the systems we need and for their own interest; that's fine but methinks LM or others don't want a low cost, operationally successful LAAR to cause serious debate on the acquisition of 5th gen multi-role strike aircraft (or at least question how many we should buy, seeing the LAAR as competition for some of the resources necessary to acquire big ticket projects - money, time, political will, logistics, force structure, etc...)

A LAAR doesn't get rid of the requirement for 5th gen strike but I think some with lots of political capitol are fearful it would hence the impossible to rationalize stubbornness of the USAF and other services to acquire that which is obviously needed.

 

Edited March 10, 2017 by Clark Griswold

[Lawman]

Good article.  
One most insightful line:
An A-29 will simply not arrive on station as quickly as an F-15, survive contested airspace like an F-22, or have the situational awareness of an F-35; nor does it need to.
This simple obvious fact that not every aircraft has to be supersonic, LO and the pinnacle of capabilities can't be grasped or publicly acknowledged by leadership hell bent on enabling the MIC to sell us what they want to (big ticket high profit on sale and service) vice what we actually need.
Some want to sell us the systems we need and for their own interest; that's fine but methinks LM or others don't want a low cost, operationally successful LAAR to cause serious debate on the acquisition of 5th gen multi-role strike aircraft (or at least question how many we should buy, seeing the LAAR as competition for some of the resources necessary to acquire big ticket projects - money, time, political will, logistics, force structure, etc...)
A LAAR doesn't get rid of the requirement for 5th gen strike but I think some with lots of political capitol are fearful it would hence the impossible to rationalize stubbornness of the USAF and other services to acquire that which is obviously needed.
 

It's not without historic precedent.

The Eagle development was the Air Force baby. Boyd and the LWF program were treated as pariahs by comparison because they were "stealing money" from the real project/need.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Clark Griswold]

17 hours ago, Lawman said:

It's not without historic precedent.

The Eagle development was the Air Force baby. Boyd and the LWF program were treated as pariahs by comparison because they were "stealing money" from the real project/need.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

 

Yup, that came to mind when I read that article too.

We like buying big high end systems and only buy the smaller lower end systems when reality calls us on the carpet.

We have to reframe this argument, it is about buying the right capability, Global Precision Attack, at the right levels:

Low threat and low effect - LAAR

Moderate threat and medium effect - A-X

High threat and up to strategic effect - B-21

This is not about this plane or that plane, we get fixated on the toys and it gets into debate with guys vicariously imagining which plane they would want to fly and we end up solving nothing.

But I still want us to buy the Scorpion...

[Champ Kind]

Without getting into the officer vs enlisted beat-around-the-bush, not saying right or wrong, but name one ejection-seat aircraft that flys with enlisted dudes. I can't thinking off the top...
I would bet the farm this platform, if it happened at all, will be crewed by an officer pilot and officer CSO/WSO/whateverjust like the strike eagle, bone, buff, hornet, growler, etc.
Manning issues will either be overcome via time and money, or the fleet will be small, or some combination of the two . 

So Es can't be trained to sit in (or more importantly be prepared to egress from) ejection seat aircraft? Can't operate in planes that fly fast? Pull Gs? I beg to differ.

I'm a huge fan of the prospect of USAF warrant officers, though. Either way, if neither of those options materialize, a GIB in these aircraft could bring life to what I consider the dying nav/CSO career field while aiding in mission execution.

[nsplayr]

5 hours ago, Champ Kind said:

So Es can't be trained to sit in (or more importantly be prepared to egress from) ejection seat aircraft? Can't operate in planes that fly fast? Pull Gs? I beg to differ.

I'm a huge fan of the prospect of USAF warrant officers, though. Either way, if neither of those options materialize, a GIB in these aircraft could bring life to what I consider the dying nav/CSO career field while aiding in mission execution.

 

Like I said, "Without getting into the O vs E argument again." I made zero judgements on whether or not officers or enlisted guy could do the job, I just made a prediction on which of those two categories would be sitting in that seat.

+1 on this being a great option for CSOs, I'm just concerned the AF either has to make way more or pull them from other communities that aren't exactly fat on bodies. If the light attack platform X community ends up with anything more than 25 tails or so, there's going to be a burden on the overall CSO force to man it properly.

Re: CSO career field dying...the traditional panel nav I agree is going away, replaced by a box. For missions like what light attack will be tasked to do, the career field is strong and stable, see AFSOC as an example. CSOs from the AC-130W/J, U-28 and MC-130J would be well-equiped to fly light attack and vice versa. Strike Eagle, Bone and Buff WSOs are also obviously good candidates for crossflow to light attack.

Edited March 11, 2017 by nsplayr

[busdriver]

If this thing ends up taking off, it'll be due to providing additional cockpit absorbtion capacity. It would make sense to put some 12F butts in seats. Need those bodies for staff one day.

[Clark Griswold]

18 hours ago, busdriver said:

If this thing ends up taking off, it'll be due to providing additional cockpit absorbtion capacity. It would make sense to put some 12F butts in seats. Need those bodies for staff one day.

Depressing but likely a reason that could get them to the party (around 14 years late depending on your opinion of when we should have realized we were running a marathon and not a sprint).

It's going to take a public brow beating ala the SECDEF Gates chiding the services and specifically the AF that spurred Project Liberty and got an FMV surge.  Not judging the efficacy of that project but I cite it as an example of an event that shocked the AF into action.

If a SECDEF, Senator or other serious politician publicly humiliated the AF or threatened to send the mission to the Army, that might spur action.

Just buy one AF... if we can not figure out how to buy a light turboprop or jet, crew it appropriately and not crash the AF then we might as well hang it up and head to the house. 

Edited March 12, 2017 by Clark Griswold

[Lawman]

Just buy one AF... if we can not figure out how to buy a light turboprop or jet, crew it appropriately and not crash the AF then we might as well hang it up and head to the house. 

Pretty sure you guys have an entire group of "Air Commandos" who do exactly that for a bunch of third world Air Forces around the globe.

How sad is it that we can figure out how good a deal this plane is for the Afghans just not for ourselves in the same theatre.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[magnetfreezer]

3 hours ago, Clark Griswold said:

It's going to take a public brow beating ala the SECDEF Gates chiding the services and specifically the AF that spurred Project Liberty and got an FMV surge.  Not judging the efficacy of that project but I cite it as an example of an event that shocked the AF into action.

That event was a major contributor to the severe fighter (and other) pilot shortage today... both directly through TAMI-21 and indirectly through the loss of trust from the rest of the fliers in the affected units. MC-12 (until recently) was manned out of hide from other MWS... that kind of shock (especially without any end strength increase/funding) is something I think we can do without.

[Clark Griswold]

2 hours ago, Lawman said:

How sad is it that we can figure out how good a deal this plane is for the Afghans just not for ourselves in the same theatre.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

True - it is an institutional character flaw in the AF.  Pride, stubbornness and a lack imagination have infected it at the deepest levels.  

1 hour ago, magnetfreezer said:

That event was a major contributor to the severe fighter (and other) pilot shortage today... both directly through TAMI-21 and indirectly through the loss of trust from the rest of the fliers in the affected units. MC-12 (until recently) was manned out of hide from other MWS... that kind of shock (especially without any end strength increase/funding) is something I think we can do without.

Agree that they were disruptive both short term and long term, the TAMI-21 sh*t sandwich though I think was way more damaging.

There was a requirement, the AF stepped up to meet it but to reference Gates again "with the fine motor skills of a dinosaur" it manned it in a 1950's style that treats highly skilled valuable difficult to produce aircrew as interchangeable cogs to be used until failure then replaced with another.  

Unfortunately for the AF as a bureaucracy, it has not gotten the message that people have options, the ones your want to keep are hard to recruit, train and retain so it continues to stumble...  if it were Gen Clark Griswold designing these programs, they would have heavily recruited from the ARC, not tried to nickel & dime the orders so that I could get a high degree of participation, looked for volunteers in the RegAF with the carrot of special programs following successful completion of their MC-12 / UAV tour rather than some pixel pusher who will need disability for repetitive knees stress (in residence PME if desired, base of choice, etc...)

We have resources, we can retain key airmen, we just need to stop acting like an AF or military for that matter from a different era.  What drives us into the dirt is that the world has changed, the wars / operations we are in are different than we are institutionally structured to meet yet we really don't change.  

The AF should be running head long into getting a LAAR not just as a cheaper way to deliver Airpower but as a strategic retention tool.  I can only speak for myself but I worked my ass off to get a Pilot Slot to be a... Military Pilot.  If you got 100 to 150 of these aircraft located at a few different, varied bases to give options for personal/family choices and QOL... instead of Capt X quitting after his second assignment UAV tour, he might stay for a career because he had a follow on in an aircraft, doing the mission and rebluing an officer in the process.  Same thing for CSO.

This will pay for itself for being about 95% cheaper when operationally employed and also when it retains hundreds of qualified aviators in the AF over the course of its operational life:

 

Edited March 13, 2017 by Clark Griswold

[HU&W]

I've been a supporter of light strike for a long time, but as time goes on, I'm starting to see more and more holes in the idea.  The real question that's bugging me is, why do we need it?  What strategic or tactical need does it fulfill that's not covered by our current menu of options, or would it be creating a new role for itself?  For us, it would fall somewhere between the MQ-9 and the A-10 as a CAS aircraft on the persistence/survivability/armament scale.  Sure, a gap exists between those aircraft now, but it could be as easily filled by upgrading the MQ-9 as creating a whole new aircraft to address its shortcomings.  

I do think it definitely could fill a broader strategic role of Kinetic FID like we did for the Afghans.  For conventional missions, however, what does it bring to the fight that an existing asset (or a slightly upgraded existing asset) doesn't?

[Sprkt69]

2 hours ago, HU&W said:

I've been a supporter of light strike for a long time, but as time goes on, I'm starting to see more and more holes in the idea.  The real question that's bugging me is, why do we need it?  What strategic or tactical need does it fulfill that's not covered by our current menu of options, or would it be creating a new role for itself?  For us, it would fall somewhere between the MQ-9 and the A-10 as a CAS aircraft on the persistence/survivability/armament scale.  Sure, a gap exists between those aircraft now, but it could be as easily filled by upgrading the MQ-9 as creating a whole new aircraft to address its shortcomings.  

I do think it definitely could fill a broader strategic role of Kinetic FID like we did for the Afghans.  For conventional missions, however, what does it bring to the fight that an existing asset (or a slightly upgraded existing asset) doesn't?

Don't kid yourself, there are plenty of roles this type of aircraft can perform at a much better price point. You can also include helping out our international partners similar to our existing A-29 program and actually having a FAC program where you can actually face to face discuss with the ground components you are there to support. I know, gasp, how could we ever do that! Plus you can free up an MQ whatever, for another mission somewhere else possibly.

[Lawman]

Don't kid yourself, there are plenty of roles this type of aircraft can perform at a much better price point. You can also include helping out our international partners similar to our existing A-29 program and actually having a FAC program where you can actually face to face discuss with the ground components you are there to support. I know, gasp, how could we ever do that! Plus you can free up an MQ whatever, for another mission somewhere else possibly.

The fact that this platform couldn't be viewed as a strategic asset the way UAS is would grant a lot of protection to theatre/AO commanders to keep and use their assets.

AFSOC could undoubtedly get usage out of this as well in the "not a real war" places like SE Asia or Southcom where we can't or don't want to advertise we are around.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ClearedHot]

3 hours ago, Lawman said:

AFSOC could undoubtedly get usage out of this as well in the "not a real war" places like SE Asia or Southcom where we can't or don't want to advertise we are around.

 

Don't hold your breath, AFSOC can't pay the rated officer bills it has right now let alone absorb another mission.