Jump to content
Fud

AF Light Air Support Aircraft

Recommended Posts

Their not going to build an A-10 replacement for this mission due to the fact that there is no way in hell they would let a foreign country operate and own such a machine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems to me that if ACC wants them, that's fine. I understand that those bubbas want to expand their role in the fight for this kind of prolonged, COIN conflict. From a "share the workload" perspective, its fine for them to do some lifting for AFSOC. However, I would still love to see at least two squadrons attached to AFSOC and tasked directly to the SOF mission. It will be way too useful of a platform to not have it well integrated into the AFSOC mission set.

I've seen a couple of missions where interactions between ACC and AFSOC units went to absolute sh*t. Unless that friction is addressed and eliminated, a huge opportunity will be lost and this whole idea will be nothing but an ACC cockpit/power grab.

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The PA-48 looks pretty bad ass. Now if they could find a way to make the turbine sound like a Merlin, I say buy 'em.

The Merlin is definitely the coolest sounding engine ever built.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Absolutely untrue. Why does everyone assume a COIN aircraft is going to be down in the mud. With the sensors and weapons we have today it is simply not necessary to loiter at 500'

Excatly, we have Attack Helicopters operating up to 10.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If anyone is at Edwards, there is a PA-48 in the little junk yard thing at Rosamond and Forbes. Freakin' bad ass looking. ... it's the a/c at the north end of the yard facing due south. I wonder if they'll ever do anything with it...

That thing is STILL there? It was in the exact same "junk yard" when I PCS'd out of Eddies for Nellis in Jan 1990. So I don't think they're in any big hurry to do anythng with it.

OBTW, isn't that "junk yard some sort of "holding pen" for exhibts for the Eddie's Flight Test Museum? At least that's what I remember, but that was a good 20 yrs and many brain cells ago.

:beer:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All platforms can hang out high until they need to shoot the gun, going down into the threat is in the job description but smart employment can limi he amount of time doing that. As for the passive aggressive UAV comment, you are missing the basic premise of COIN which is to give the capability to the Partner Nation so they can provide for their own defense and security.

As to your last sentence, you are saying they don't have them in Afghanistan or Iraq? HUH!!! Are you still in ROTC?

Edited by HerkDerka

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As to your last sentence, you are saying they don't have them in Afghanistan or Iraq? HUH!!! Are you still in ROTC?

I assume he is an intel guy...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest bunk22

So let me get this straight, I "mis-identified" two missiles that I watched bite off on flares and detonate a few hundred feet behind me? Unless it hits me, I am uninformed?

I am going to stop because the sheer number of moronic statements you have in this one post alone should elevate this to an epic thread.

Slamming folks for sport is not fun to me and it pains me to type the following...Your post leads me to believe you are either;

1. A flaming Troll trying to stir the pot.

2. A poser.

3. The single most uninformed aircrew member I've ever heard of.

If the answer is 3, you have zero business flying in combat with anyone in my Air Force.

We get this type of poser all the time over on airwarriors. There is a reason he doesn't fill out his profile, he's full of shit. A wannabe or poser.

I've had some privy info into the Super T program of the Navy and all I can say is I'm impressed.

Edited by bunk22

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Overall, I would fly the plane in combat tomorrow.

The T-6As on our ramp seem to always be in some state of slightly broken. We treat ours pretty well, how likely is it that the AT-6B will be any more durable in combat from a forward location? Can the AT-6B land on unimproved strips? I bet the Sky Tractor could.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The T-6As on our ramp seem to always be in some state of slightly broken. We treat ours pretty well, how likely is it that the AT-6B will be any more durable in combat from a forward location? Can the AT-6B land on unimproved strips? I bet the Sky Tractor could.

When we did the assessment we operated out of a civilian airport in Virginia for a month with a single crew chief and never lost a sortie.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The aircraft itself isn't what looks ridiculous, it's all the specs it claims to have. Basically, it's like a christmas list of things for a COIN plane (or hell, for an A-10 replacement!). Might as well claim to loiter at 100 KIAS and also be able to go supersonic . . . with a prop.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How the hell do they think that thing is going to get 540 KIAS?!

That has to be a joke. Currently the record holder for "The fastest single engine turboprop" is the XA2D Shyshark and is well over40 KIAS slower...(500 mph). So throwing up a giant BS flag.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The plans are stored in the wastebasket...

I figured...just my luck. I actually heard they (Beech) had looked at that for some of the Honduras type nations as a mini-bomber. Craaaazy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How the hell do they think that thing is going to get 540 KIAS?!

That has to be a joke. Currently the record holder for "The fastest single engine turboprop" is the XA2D Shyshark and is well over40 KIAS slower...(500 mph). So throwing up a giant BS flag.

huh?

Did you actually read it?

Several different versions, only one has a turbo prop, the rest are regular jet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Krabs

How the hell do they think that thing is going to get 540 KIAS?!

It's a fvcking fake airplane by a fvucking fake company, they can say whatever the hell they feel like, even if something does violate physics (which the "CEO" has a degree in by the way).

http://www.defensetech.org/archives/000009.html

Here's the CEO, who has worked for such renowned aerospace firms as Minnesota Pipes & Drums. He's some dude with a lot of time and an airplane design hobby:

That has to be a joke..

I would call the website a hoax, and the worthless airplane designs a joke.

So throwing up a giant BS flag.

Bingo.

Edited by Krabs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest 3GAF

It's a fvcking fake airplane by a fvucking fake company, they can say whatever the hell they feel like, even if something does violate physics (which the "CEO" has a degree in by the way).

http://www.defensetech.org/archives/000009.html

Here's the CEO, who has worked for such renowned aerospace firms as Minnesota Pipes & Drums. He's some dude with a lot of time and an airplane design hobby:

I would call the website a hoax, and the worthless airplane designs a joke.

Bingo.

Agreed. Here's a little more grist to dispel any rumor that Stavatti might actually be legit. http://www.wingeddefense.com/archives/141

Edited by 3GAF

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thread bump:

Fresh from today's AFA Daily Report:

"b]Branching Out: Hawker Beechcraft wants the Air Force to consider an attack variant of its T-6 trainer to fill the Light Attack/Armed Reconnaissance aircraft role the service wants to fill within the next couple of years. Hawker announced last week that it had conducted a successful first flight of its AT-6 prototype and would complete the next phase of flight testing in October. "We are almost three weeks ahead of schedule," said Bill Boisture, Hawker Beechcraft CEO, and added, "We believe the AT-6 offers the broadest range capabilities available in the market." For the light attack role, the company has structurally strengthened the T-6 airframe. As we reported last month, the Air Force has put out feelers within industry to find a platform that can operate from dirt fields and employ a variety of air-to-ground weapons. It wants to field the first of 100 aircraft by 2012."

Unlike the wayward UAV that had to get spanked (sts) :gun: I'll bet a manned A/C wouldn't just wander off...

However, I sure driving an AT-6 or similiar aircraft from the states to anywhere overseas wouldn't be a whole ton o' fun. Especially in PACAF. But on drop night I'm sure no one would cry getting a AT-6 over a UAV.

To the dude/dudette who "killed" the Pred :salut::beer:

Discuss...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest CharlieDontSurf

Apparently Boeing is piching a new Bronco, the OV-10(X) to fill the Light Attack/Armed Reconnaissance aircraft role.

(per OV-10 Bronco.net and http://www.flightglobal.com)

post-1551-125303624753_thumb.jpg

Boeing OV-10(X) Super Bronco informational brochure

ov-10x.pdf

Mike

uuuhhhhhh...i think i just pee-d a little. new OV-10, as in OOOOOOOOOOOV-10. Damn dude that looks awesome, good find.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


×