AF Light Air Support Aircraft

[Sprkt69]

5 hours ago, tac airlifter said:

All good points, not to mention forward basing with the teams we support builds relationships which both enable ops that might not otherwise happen and improve the quality of deliberatly executed ops.  Manned ISR is an absolutely essential part of current and future operations.  Unmanned is huge value added, but these capabilities compliment rather than replace each other.

I know plenty of guys who have crossed between manned and unmanned ISR and they unanimously share these opinions.  Dual sensor manned ISR isn't going to be replaced by single sensor unmanned.

Take binoculars and a VSLIM, check in w/ GFC as sensor 3, profit.  

Got to add that you can sell the LAAR to the fuzzies and let them fight their own battles. Really tough to sell them US RPA technology, though they just buy em from China anyways

[Clark Griswold]

9 hours ago, nsplayr said:

Dual sensor on a single platform... MQ-9...

From your comment a sidebar question:

If OPSEC allows...

Has dual sensor (FMV) on a Reaper (or similar Tier II or above RPA) been discussed / proposed?  Not the WAMI you mentioned earlier in the thread but maybe a SNIPER pod or another integrated sensor?  

Bandwidth likely a bottleneck but something akin to GORGON STARE with fewer frames per second for a secondary capability (general SA of the compound / area).

[nsplayr]

Yes. Live version of the page is 404, but see the google cache link below.

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:o-XVgMeVCPUJ:www.wpafb.af.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/1038723/agilepod-reconfiguring-isr-mission/+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

[Clark Griswold]

Gotcha - thanks


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[SurelySerious]

If I recall correctly, the sticking point on sniper was GA didn't want to let the software integrate.

[Clark Griswold]

If I recall correctly, the sticking point on sniper was GA didn't want to let the software integrate.

Techy question but is a hardware translator between the two systems possible if the OEMs don't want to integrate their system?

Just take the data to/from the pod and make it just another data stream on their bus to go to the BLOS links and keep command and data feed from having to be integrated into the platform system tightly


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[nsplayr]

It's fairly technical, but all things are possible with 1s and 0s + time + money. But the bottom line is that it will never work if the industry partners in question don't work together.

GA has typically not been friendly at all to other companies "encroaching" on their fairly sizable RPA empire, even when the operators are jumping up and down for improvements that are par for the course on other platforms.

Edited May 10, 2017 by nsplayr

[xcraftllc]

http://www.airforcemag.com/Features/Pages/2017/May 2017/Holmes-Has-an-OA-X-to-Grind.aspx

[BFM this]

So, did I miss something?  I thought Light Attack and an A-10 replacement (O/A-X) were two different things?

Seems like wordsmithing to get congress to finally allow the AF to turn  the remaining Hogs into soda cans.

[LookieRookie]

1 hour ago, BFM this said:

So, did I miss something?  I thought Light Attack and an A-10 replacement (O/A-X) were two different things?

Seems like wordsmithing to get congress to finally allow the AF to turn  the remaining Hogs into soda cans.

O/A-X is light attack/LAAR. A-X is A-10 replacement.

[xcraftllc]

I just posted that because I came across it (sts). As an Army Guy at heart, I'm still 169% about upgrading the A-10.

Edited May 12, 2017 by xcraftllc

[Clark Griswold]

1 hour ago, xcraftllc said:

Look guys I just posted that because I came across it (sts). As an Army Guy at heart, I'm still  169% about upgrading the A-10.

No swipes at you from the peanut gallery I think, just lament I believe at the fecklessness / meandering of the AF, in particular to Light Attack acquisition or not.

On the related subject of upgrading the A-10 why not go for broke (technologically) as the AF loves the most expensive and technically riskiest concepts (usually)... as the A-10 is built for and around the 30mm why not develop a concept attack aircraft built around a new precision engagement weapon, my suggestion would be a laser, nsplayer made a persuasive argument for getting one in the field earlier in the thread.

The AF wants the new hotness, put the first operational weaponized laser in an A-10 successor.

Give it a laser in lieu of the 30mm (give this A-X a 25mm with enough for a few trigger pulls still), radar in the nose, strong ECM suite, internal weapons carriage capability along with LO external weapons pods, DSI and recessed engines with very slightly swept wings and conformal fuel tanks.  Flex AR capability (probe or boom) and short field capability.  350 NM combat radius with 30 on-station.

Shoot for a fly-away cost of about 50-60 mil a tail and operating cost around $7.5k an hour.

[Seriously]

On 5/12/2017 at 0:31 PM, Clark Griswold said:

Give it a laser in lieu of the 30mm (give this A-X a 25mm with enough for a few trigger pulls still), radar in the nose, strong ECM suite, internal weapons carriage capability along with LO external weapons pods, DSI and recessed engines with very slightly swept wings and conformal fuel tanks.  Flex AR capability (probe or boom) and short field capability.  350 NM combat radius with 30 on-station.

Shoot for a fly-away cost of about 50-60 mil a tail and operating cost around $7.5k an hour.

I bet our international partners would be interested in that as well. Hell, they could even help in the development to help keep costs down for everyone.And not everyone would want or need a flexible AR capability or a short field capability. So you'd have to make different models of it. And with the capabilities you described, it could probably replace multiple aging airframes in the fleet. If only the Air Force had thought of this joint strike fighter concept...

Edited May 14, 2017 by Seriously

[Clark Griswold]

2 hours ago, Seriously said:

I bet our international partners would be interested in that as well. Hell, they could even help in the development to help keep costs down for everyone.And not everyone would want or need a flexible AR capability or a short field capability. So you'd have to make different models of it. And with the capabilities you described, it could probably replace multiple aging airframes in the fleet. If only the Air Force had thought of this joint strike fighter concept...

For the proposed A-10 successor I am talking about I only want one cook in the kitchen and this is not a jack of all trades master of none, this would be a reduced signature / balanced survivability attack aircraft, not multi-role strike fighter.  

Just my two cents but in grey zone conflicts, irregular actors / failing states with partial conventional military capabilities or varying levels of support from conventional militaries that we are at best frenemies, we will need a capability that can mitigate threats, self-defend, self cue from on-board multi int/multi sensors, deliver effects for longer station times with no AR and is designed around delivering next generation weapons, PGMs and directed energy.

The F-35 can do some of that but not all of it and it can't do it long enough (sts).

With our "mixed" record on acquisitions of late, I know the USAF would have a steep climb to get this requirement funded but IMO it is need.

Combine the HELLADS and ABC systems into an attack jet and you can blast ISIS for a few bucks a shot, not blow up the entire compound (unless you want to) and swing to attacking / defending against conventional forces / threats.

Attack needs a 1, 2 punch:  A-X in moderate threat and OA-X in low threat.

Derail - Complete (P).

Edited May 14, 2017 by Clark Griswold

[viper154]

On 5/9/2017 at 9:44 AM, nsplayr said:

Dual sensor on a single platform, let alone dual sensor in a 2-ship, changes the game for strikes where CDE is a concern (i.e. a huge percentage of all operations). Cheaper than MQ-9 when factoring in all the link architecture. Helps with pilot retention issues vs hurting them (i.e. people would want to fly the light attack mission, not so many pilots are volunteering for RPA). Much faster response time from launch to target area (400+ kts vs 200 kts). As stated, all WX capability. Better LOS radio comms and better maneuverability = better CAS support when friendlies on the ground.

MQ-9 is great at what it does and is getting better every day with new tech and weapons, but I wouldn't think I'd have to advocate for the pros of a manned platform on BO.net!

In my 2 years of RPA pergitory ive only seen a MQ-9 break 200kts once, full power 15 degrees nose low dive out of icing. 120 is more accurate. 

 

You couldn't pay me any amount to stay for another RPA tour. I would give a testicle for a light attack manned tour. 

 

Wieght, electrical power, bandwidth are big considerations for a second sensor on the current RPA fleet. A second sensor that the pilot could operate would be awesome, with a throttle quad similar to what the pointy nose types are using, but I would not want trade my ability to go kenetic for it. Unfortunately the -9 was not designed for a second sensor, and I think it would be easier to design a new RPA around that set up. 

 

Better yet, get us a light attack manned option so us stuck in RPAs can gtfo. 

[BFM this]

On 5/14/2017 at 5:16 PM, viper154 said:

In my 2 years of RPA pergitory ive only seen a MQ-9 break 200kts once, full power 15 degrees nose low dive out of icing. 120 is more accurate. 

Every.

RTB.

 

...had to find entertainment where you could.

Edited May 15, 2017 by BFM this

[12xu2a3x3]

On 5/9/2017 at 1:15 PM, di1630 said:

Is BAI becoming a standard term?




Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network Forums

the term has existed since at least the late eighties, but i haven't heard it used much.

[Clark Griswold]

the term has existed since at least the late eighties, but i haven't heard it used much.

It is not an exact term for what I was alluding to but close enough

Air-Land Battle needs a refresh to address Grey Zone conflicts


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[12xu2a3x3]

5 hours ago, Clark Griswold said:

It is not an exact term for what I was alluding to but close enough

Air-Land Battle needs a refresh to address Grey Zone conflicts


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

gotcha and agreed. though i'm curious about BAI's etymology now. first remember seeing it written here.

admittedly i was about 5 when it was published. 

Edited May 16, 2017 by 12xu2a3x3
punctuation

[Clark Griswold]

On 5/16/2017 at 2:21 PM, 12xu2a3x3 said:

gotcha and agreed. though i'm curious about BAI's etymology now. first remember seeing it written here.

admittedly i was about 5 when it was published. 

Yeah - i remember it mentioned in the Air-Land Battle concept from 70's - 80's but Google is not readily supplying a reference for that.

Found an AU article on the subject though that supplies a good analysis on the difference between BAI and AI, basically saying that BAI is in support of friendly forces engaged but does not require detailed coordination ala CAS where AI is more upstream, preventing enemy forces, support or logistics from being brought to bear.

Article:  http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/apj/apj90/spr90/2spr90.htm

For this next generation mission driving the need for a Light to Scalable capabilities platform IMO, the doctrine has to be written to give this more footing, LAAR seems to get dismissed as a niche capability but it is not.  This is an on-going, established requirement again IMO that is demonstrated from our 15+ years of COIN / LIC which is now morphing into Grey Zone Combat Operations.

Not exactly persistent ISR with kinetic effects capability if called, we've got that covered with Tier II RPAs, MQ-9 and successors.

Not exactly traditional Attack as it is longer in duration and target development (usually) than receiving a call for fires message and delivering effects with the main concern being friendly deconfliction, currently covered with several platforms, hopefully with an A-X dedicated platform in the future.

The new mission is air operations conducted on a repetitive not persistent scale, tailored effects as required, usually in permissive environments but capable of up to low+ / moderate-, network and comm focused for dynamic collaboration while capable of independent operation from C2 and with a flexible logistical footprint to allow for operational flexibility.

That's just my musings but looking at that, you come back to a two crew manned platform with room for growth, basically Scorpion.

[di1630]

I bet our international partners would be interested in that as well. Hell, they could even help in the development to help keep costs down for everyone.

Ha, will this plane look good at air shows? Can it take a good photo at sunset with afterburners?

Then, no, our international partners will not care.

You guys need to understand the U.S. Is about the only NATO country serious about supporting a ground force from the air.

I just got back from 2 weeks of working with foreign ground forces/navy, and multiple NATO aircraft types. Nobody has a clue.


Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network Forums

[Clark Griswold]

4 hours ago, di1630 said:

Ha, will this plane look good at air shows? Can it take a good photo at sunset with afterburners?
Then, no, our international partners will not care.
You guys need to understand the U.S. Is about the only NATO country serious about supporting a ground force from the air.
I just got back from 2 weeks of working with foreign ground forces/navy, and multiple NATO aircraft types. Nobody has a clue.

Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network Forums

Is it something (air to mud) they just don't practice and are not that good at or are they really ambivalent / apathetic?

Do you mean CAS specifically or BAI also? 

[Seriously]

23 hours ago, di1630 said:

Ha, will this plane look good at air shows? Can it take a good photo at sunset with afterburners?
 

It was an F-35 joke.

[Clark Griswold]

It was an F-35 joke.

Copy
Pardon my naïveté - I've heard variations on that theme before hence the earnest question


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[di1630]

Is it something (air to mud) they just don't practice and are not that good at or are they really ambivalent / apathetic?
Do you mean CAS specifically or BAI also? 

No, not a F-35 joke. It's a combination of not caring about CAS and not understanding the fundamentals. Other missions as well such as CSAR, SCAR etc.

I'm not real sure what BAI is. Most training I see in Europe is perfect if the cold war 1986 kicks off.

Really frustrating, depressing/ eye opening. The really scary thing is that they don't know how bad they are. They assume they are doing the same thing how the USAF does.

75% focus is on A/A, 20% airshows and 5% on supporting ground troops.




Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network Forums