AF Light Air Support Aircraft

[Tank]

50 minutes ago, Clark Griswold said:

There's a logic to geographic distribution beyond the AvFID focused bases.

AFSOC might not be the only place to put them, ACC could get a contingent of the buy.   They have a common baseline configuration but each MAJCOM could add their pods & mods as they see fit.

ACC could focus on light strike, tactical ISR, FAC-A in conventional operations once the threat is suppressed and AFSOC has the advise and train mission along with SOF support.

The 6th and 711th SOS at Duke are already talking with the 81st FS at Moody about AvFID integration.  

If the A-29 ever happens, then I can see a lot of options for it.  Problem though is that I've been told to expect a precision strike type aircraft like the A-29 for almost 3 years to conduct AvFID and still haven't seen the aircraft or JCET/MTT happen yet.  

[Clark Griswold]

8 hours ago, Tank said:

The 6th and 711th SOS at Duke are already talking with the 81st FS at Moody about AvFID integration.  

If the A-29 ever happens, then I can see a lot of options for it.  Problem though is that I've been told to expect a precision strike type aircraft like the A-29 for almost 3 years to conduct AvFID and still haven't seen the aircraft or JCET/MTT happen yet.  

Really?  That's a good sign but as you said it's been 3 years and nada.  I wonder if one of the other branches proposed to take over this set of COIN / LIC missions if that would get the AF to shit or get off the pot.

[Blue]

Three years to the A-29?  Where have I heard that before.

Oh yeah, that's right.  In the very first post of this entire thread.  About eight years ago.....

 

 

[Clark Griswold]

5 hours ago, Blue said:

Three years to the A-29?  Where have I heard that before.

Oh yeah, that's right.  In the very first post of this entire thread.  About eight years ago.....

Yup - it's still a less than 50% chance IMO that Big Blue will acquire a LAAR but argue in whatever venue you can in the hope (maybe in vain) that the powers that be are listening.

Looking back, I think it is legitimate that in the 2003 to 2005 time frame, the USAF should have realized that OEF and then OIF were marathons not sprints and that a new way of delivering Strike / ISR was necessary, a compliment to the existing but limited capability in the Predator and soon in 2007 to be introduced Reaper.

So with that, does acquiring a LAAR still make sense?  Yes.  

But why when we have the Reaper FOC and years of successful use with it now doing Persistent ISR w/ Strike Capability?  Because the LAAR is going to be doing a different mission than Persistent ISR w/ Strike Capability.  This manned asset should not as a rule be tasked with Persistent ISR w/ Strike but primarily light BAI, CAS and the derivative mission(s) of FAC-A & SCAR at appropriate effects required / threat appropriate AORs.

The drive / requirement of tactical affordability is driven by the strategic implication of economic exchange in warfare.  

LAAR will support ground maneuver elements more effectively than tasking a UAV for overwatch, react to pop up TICs thus keeping persistent stare on TOIs to complete their long total missions/efforts and provide a cheaper per hour mission and total cost of ownership than if we expand the RPA fleet to use for these types of missions.

As W aptly put it "President George W. Bush famously told four senators that he wasn’t “going to fire a $2 million missile at a $10 empty tent and hit a camel in the butt.”

Each CAP costs about $20 million per year and Reapers when you factor in the total system cost about $120 million per tail with at least 170 personnel executing the mission and/or supporting it.  It is an asset for a certain type of mission with an expensive but necessary capability, extreme endurance, use it for what it is best for not for what it could possibly but inefficiently do.  

Use a LAAR for what it was built for and can do inexpensively, on demand light strike, ISR and battlefield coordination.

Articles on the subject:  

http://foreignpolicy.com/2014/10/08/destroying-a-30000-islamic-state-pickup-truck-can-cost-half-a-million-dollars/

http://nation.time.com/2012/02/27/1-the-reaper-revolution-revisited/

http://nation.time.com/2012/02/28/2-the-mq-9s-cost-and-performance/

Edited April 29, 2017 by Clark Griswold
rant completion

[MC5Wes]

While looking for a maintenance job. I saw that SNC is looking for A-29 Pilots at Moody.

https://snc.wd1.myworkdayjobs.com/en-US/SNC_External_Career_Site/job/GA---Moody-AFB/A-29--Super-Tucano--Instructor-Pilot_R0002836

 

 

[Clark Griswold]

Just buy one already AF.

 

[Pancake]

1 hour ago, MC5Wes said:

While looking for a maintenance job. I saw that SNC is looking for A-29 Pilots at Moody.

https://snc.wd1.myworkdayjobs.com/en-US/SNC_External_Career_Site/job/GA---Moody-AFB/A-29--Super-Tucano--Instructor-Pilot_R0002836

 

 

So what does it pay and do you have to deploy?

[MC5Wes]

Oh, I'm sure the pay is not enough. Especially for having to live at Moody or Shindand.

[Cooter]

On 4/28/2017 at 3:10 PM, ClearedHot said:

What bloated staff?  Are you on a deployed staff?

Last I heard the rated staff manning was sub 75% and the AFSOC rated staff was anything but bloated.

I was hired help at AFSOC A5 ("duties at"...which is another point of contention) but now me and 4 of my recent school grad buddies are all doing BS jobs at a "staff" (quotes intentional). 

GFM, force disposition, regional country plans, GSOS, general horse buggery, etc...great way to utilize the talent of a group of dudes with 20K+ flight hours (half or more combat I'm sure). We've done maybe a few things that have required any air expertise let alone SOF air expertise. 

"Is this thing on????" tap tap tap, "hello USAF, you're sending a mixed message!"

How bout give us a few LAAR at staff and we'll shop them around to partners of choice (godammit, hate that term) while moving about our AOR. Plus it has the added benefit of me not wanting to swerve my car into oncoming traffic every morning...just sayin'!

cooter

[ClearedHot]

12 hours ago, Cooter said:

I was hired help at AFSOC A5 ("duties at"...which is another point of contention) but now me and 4 of my recent school grad buddies are all doing BS jobs at a "staff" (quotes intentional).

"Duties at"...I get it brother, do the work but don't get the full credit.  However, you are kind of arguing against yourself here.  Rated Staff entitlements are almost always WELL below 100% so "duties at" is used to get help on the staff by going around the rated allocations and matches AND to get some credit (OPR push and strat), for development. 

Having worked at a few staffs I understand the rated officer disdain but when the majority of this board constantly bitches about the shoes being in charge and the "idiotic" decisions that are made, keep in mind that is the byproduct of non-rated folks shaping things. 

You mentioned AFSOC/A5, in the ideal world you would have one person from each crew position on the staff to represent the needs of that community, never seen it happen.  In fact I've traditionally seen one AC-130 crew member cover every crew position on three different models of the gunship. 

I hear what you are saying, I really honestly get it, but there is a balance somewhere in the middle where sharp rated folks get to influence the long-term decisions (while getting appropriate staff credit for development).

By the way, how can you swerve your car into oncoming traffic on highway 98 when it is at a complete standstill?...just sayin'!

[Clark Griswold]

On 5/3/2017 at 8:39 PM, Cooter said:

I was hired help at AFSOC A5 ("duties at"...which is another point of contention) but now me and 4 of my recent school grad buddies are all doing BS jobs at a "staff" (quotes intentional). 

GFM, force disposition, regional country plans, GSOS, general horse buggery, etc...great way to utilize the talent of a group of dudes with 20K+ flight hours (half or more combat I'm sure). We've done maybe a few things that have required any air expertise let alone SOF air expertise. 

"Is this thing on????" tap tap tap, "hello USAF, you're sending a mixed message!"

How bout give us a few LAAR at staff and we'll shop them around to partners of choice (godammit, hate that term) while moving about our AOR. Plus it has the added benefit of me not wanting to swerve my car into oncoming traffic every morning...just sayin'!

cooter

How dare you question how real Airpower is delivered now!  Didn't you learn anything at re-education camp?

This is how devastating TMT strikes and lethal takers are delivered to the enemy...

Not this oppressive heterosexual dominant privileged cockpit that can only bring weapons and sensors to bear on the enemy, how passé...

On a more serious note, has anyone in the SOF or Attack community flown or assessed the IA-58 Pucará?

Edited May 5, 2017 by Clark Griswold
aircraft pornography added

[ClearedHot]

9 hours ago, Clark Griswold said:

On a more serious note, has anyone in the SOF or Attack community flown or assessed the IA-58 Pucará?

The SAS "assessed" the Pucara a number of years back.

[Clark Griswold]

The SAS "assessed" the Pucara a number of years back.

Copy so probably not any US pilots of late.

Brits did take a few home after the Falklands and fly them for a bit even thinking about them for COIN just curious if we had gotten first hand knowledge


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Lawman]

I dig the looks of it, but only because if everybody equates the A-29 to a modern version of the SPAD, then the Pacura is the closest thing out there to this monster...




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Clark Griswold]

10 hours ago, Lawman said:

I dig the looks of it, but only because if everybody equates the A-29 to a modern version of the SPAD, then the Pacura is the closest thing out there to this monster...
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Always liked the F7F - two motors would be good

If we're going down (sts) the rabbit hole get a modernized F-82

Pilot and CSO get their own cockpits

 

Edited May 5, 2017 by Clark Griswold

[Cooter]

23 hours ago, Clark Griswold said:

How dare you question how real Airpower is delivered now!  Didn't you learn anything at re-education camp?

This is how devastating TMT strikes and lethal takers are delivered to the enemy...

Not this oppressive heterosexual dominant privileged cockpit that can only bring weapons and sensors to bear on the enemy, how passé...

On a more serious note, has anyone in the SOF or Attack community flown or assessed the IA-58 Pucará?

Shame on me....what on earth was I thinking!

[Cooter]

On 5/4/2017 at 8:54 AM, ClearedHot said:

"Duties at"...I get it brother, do the work but don't get the full credit.  However, you are kind of arguing against yourself here.  Rated Staff entitlements are almost always WELL below 100% so "duties at" is used to get help on the staff by going around the rated allocations and matches AND to get some credit (OPR push and strat), for development. 

Having worked at a few staffs I understand the rated officer disdain but when the majority of this board constantly bitches about the shoes being in charge and the "idiotic" decisions that are made, keep in mind that is the byproduct of non-rated folks shaping things. 

You mentioned AFSOC/A5, in the ideal world you would have one person from each crew position on the staff to represent the needs of that community, never seen it happen.  In fact I've traditionally seen one AC-130 crew member cover every crew position on three different models of the gunship. 

I hear what you are saying, I really honestly get it, but there is a balance somewhere in the middle where sharp rated folks get to influence the long-term decisions (while getting appropriate staff credit for development).

By the way, how can you swerve your car into oncoming traffic on highway 98 when it is at a complete standstill?...just sayin'!

True true true, very fine line. I'm personally butt hurt due to my "staff" time not counting for jack and shit. SO post school I get told it didn't count and get sent to, what I can only equate to an insane asylum.

I know what the right person on a staff can do for a community but at the same time, can ID when there's a grosse oversight. 

Again fine balance...but my current predicament is leaning to the side of lunacy!

cooter

[Clark Griswold]

15 minutes ago, Cooter said:

Shame on me....what on earth was I thinking!

Indeed...

    ;-)

On a related subject to light attack aircraft, an article on an developing attack aircraft at multiple levels with actual strategy for delivering & sustaining capability not merely a successor to a platform currently performing a mission.  Worth the time.

https://warontherocks.com/2017/05/reclaiming-the-air-attack-mission-a-radical-return-to-a-proven-success/

 

[matmacwc]

Lets just get the Wright flyer again. I mean if we think we are going to fight the same war for the next 30 years, lets just go all the way back.

Edited May 6, 2017 by matmacwc

[MechGov]

I get it, but as an AFSOC pilot wasting my time on a useless staff I hate hearing this.  We have plenty of pilots, we just aren't employing them correctly which ironically is driving more of them to leave, thus worsening the "pilot manning pinch" which is entirely self-inflicted.  If the USAF said "we need pilots who can and want to fly light attack airplanes; volunteers who meet xxxx criteria will be released from less important jobs" they'd have plenty of volunteers, and my guess is the machine would keep humming along just fine.  That bloated staff manning is prioritized above a genuine combat need is further proof current leadership is incapable of fixing the retention problem. 

THIS.

But the again I'm a line guy...having watched AF (and AFSOC) punt a whole bunch of high time IPs then flood us with brand new copiglets during the last Hunger Games.


Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network Forums

[BashiChuni]

yes.

Edited May 6, 2017 by BashiChuni

[Clark Griswold]

Lets just get the Wright flyer again. I mean if we think we are going to fight the same war for the next 30 years, lets just go all the way back.

Lighten up Francis

Just fantasizing spending hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars reinventing the wheel



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[xcraftllc]

It would have pretty good hourly operating costs.

[Clark Griswold]

46 minutes ago, xcraftllc said:

It would have pretty good hourly operating costs.

Maybe, but as we have discussed and speculated on bringing back former attack aircraft for COIN / LIC missions we have a tendency to want bigger than is probably warranted for a Light Attack.

I think it was only a desire and not a requirement for about $1,000 per hour flight cost but as long as it doesn't go north of $3,000 per hour and doesn't need much support to execute a 5 hour mission (AR, cueing from another airborne asset, etc..) going up to the level of Scorpion Jet is probably ok, IMO.  Beyond that, it is probably too much to execute the anti 3 dudes in a Hilux mission.

[xcraftllc]

No I mean the Wright Flyer