Jump to content

AF Light Air Support Aircraft


Fud

Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, di1630 said:

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

BAi is Battlefield Aerial Interdiction. It's a term for AI performed in vicinity of friendlies while they are engaged but without the type of detailed deconfliction that CAS requires.

It's not part of the Joint terminology now and as I recall there was resistance to the idea of it as it seemed to imply that Air would strike independently in or just behind the FEBA without coordination / direction of a GFC.

Crap - well to light a candle and as this is a thread on light support aircraft maybe that could be another mission for it - an inexpensive training platform for the NATO partners to use also to build a cadre of expertise in CAS, SCAR, etc... would also give them some capability to participate efficiently in long term COIN / LIC operations if they wanted to or were willing to... maybe...

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Edited by Clark Griswold
Link to comment
Share on other sites


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


Since the majority of NATO countries have no effective ground maneuver to support anyway that's probably in line with the rest of their joint capability.

Denmark was the only country I saw actually use tanks in a way similar to how we would use them (massed formation). Everybody else tanks were just mobile bunkers that would go somewhere and assume a security posture.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Couple of thoughts on the above:

1. The "minor league" mentality should never get off the ground. Associating "big league" with big threat and "minor league" to permissive is not helpful or correct IMHO. Any platform closely integrating with ground forces and dropping weapons is, to me, big league by definition. Not sure why in the author's construct a new OA-X pilot would be mission qual'd and killing bad guys downrange after 12 months when T-1 track pilots for non-lethal platforms and FAIPs would continue to take longer to produce. Perhaps the author envisions greatly shortening UPT/IQT/MQT for all non-4th gen/5th gen fighter platforms?

2. The author mentions, of a potential OA-X platform, that, "...its small size and off the shelf procurement could leave little room in the airframe to add new capability without removing existing pieces." I will say that for one competitor in particular this couldn't be further from the truth. By design it is modular and has a TON of room for growt in both the airframes capacity to carry new toys as well as the overall mission systems architecture. This is at least somewhat true for all four of the competitors, to an extent that I'm not sure the author correctly acknowledges.

3. Directly chopping an OA-X squadron to an ASOS isn't a great concept IMHO, even as a guy who greatly appreciates the value of building personal relationships with the ground teams you are supporting. The army uses and abuses the air that it "owns," and I still believe the USAF is independent for a reason, even for a ground attack platform. 

4. I always lol at the concept that the AF considers something a "niche" capability if it is permissive-only, and the author seems to agree. What % of all combat has been done in a high- or even medium- threat environment since Vietnam? Even there you had plenty of permissive-only-type platforms doing great work. Not that it'll never happen again, but after 30+ years of fighting this way I'd call the need to provide air-to-ground kinetic effects in a permissive environment enough of a trend that we can allow communities and platforms to specialize in that with no shame or "minor league" mentality.

Overall good conversations to be had, thanks for sharing Clark.

FWIW the upcoming competition is now branded as LAE, light attack experiment.

Edited by nsplayr
  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, nsplayr said:

Couple of thoughts on the above:

1. The "minor league" mentality should never get off the ground. 

2. ... By design it is modular and has a TON of room for growt in both the airframes capacity to carry new toys as well as the overall mission systems architecture...

3. ...I still believe the USAF is independent for a reason, even for a ground attack platform. 

4. ... after 30+ years of fighting this way I'd call the need to provide air-to-ground kinetic effects in a permissive environment enough of a trend that we can allow communities and platforms to specialize in that with no shame or "minor league" mentality.

Overall good conversations to be had, thanks for sharing Clark.

Your welcome and good points.

I don't agree with his idea of shortening SUPT as the pilots tracking to OA-X would (wrongly) be treated as second class aviators I suspect.  I don't have a problem with maybe giving them a focused / slightly shorter Advanced Trainer phase  if a slightly longer primary phase that is fused with some IQT / MQT for OA-X can be had.  

They need the same minimum hours / training everyone else gets, it is just they could possible get a bit more done in primary along with some work towards their OA-X Qual.  This assumes (as I suspect the author of the article implied that OA-X if it happens is the AT-6B).  The more interesting idea would be for studs to do primary in the T-6 and then do their advanced phase in Scorpion (in a trainer configuration) then go to a shorter MQT phase in Scorpion as they now have their wings and IQT in Scorpion also.

Edited by Clark Griswold
grammar fix
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, Kiloalpha said:
Because accountability is a banned word when it comes to the SecAF. 
Let me put it this way. I thought the Scorpion jet was a cool concept. Now I hate it. Surely I'm not the only one that feels this way. Textron might have just hurt themselves more than helped by hiring her...

Possibly (screwed themselves) but the sins of the mother don't follow the son.

Scorpion is still the best of the lot.

We're buying the jet not the company - even if Skeletor worked there, it would still be the right aircraft.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Edited by Clark Griswold
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If y'all think that putting a former SECAF on your board hurts your chances when trying to sell an aircraft to the USAF, I'm not so sure you understand how this game is played. Regardless of that former official's reputation one way or other amongst the proletariat...

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, nsplayr said:

If y'all think that putting a former SECAF on your board hurts your chances when trying to sell an aircraft to the USAF, I'm not so sure you understand how this game is played. Regardless of that former official's reputation one way or other amongst the proletariat...

Just seems like extending your jaw for a left hook of a contract award protest if Textron is awarded a contract.  

It's ready made for a company to protest and launch a media campaign against.  With our infotainment oriented journalism these days how long before Textron is under the microscope / segment on name your cable commentary show with "Grinds my Gears" diatribe? 

grinds+my+gears.png

An opportunistic Congressman who just happens to be from FL could royally f up a legitimate but outwardly suspicious acquisition decision and we end up with no toys and rotten egg (again) on our face.

Edited by Clark Griswold
parting shot
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The view from the other side, uniformed arguments against a LAAR:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/lorenthompson/2017/03/06/air-force-light-fighter-concept-seems-a-bit-light-on-logic/2/#2ccc4a4d478b

Posted only to show the if the AF is serious about this, making persuasive arguments that inform and dispel ideas like a LAAR is completely helpless against MANPADs / AAA and that it makes a whole lotta sense for fights in semi-governed shitholes, is going to be necessary.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From that "article,":

"Disclosure: the F-35 is produced by Lockheed Martin, which contributes to my think tank and is a consulting client."

Pretty straight-forward hit job masquerading as journalism from LM, nice try fellas. Don't worry guys, with the money saved by passing on a light attack aircraft we can by 1/3 of another F-35!

The author is not a qualified, rational decision maker who need to be convinced, he is an industry partisan that seems to lack any relevant experience and who needs to be ignored. 

Edited by nsplayr
  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"It has invested heavily in smart bombs and tactical communications since 9-11, so that close air support can now be accomplished by all of its bombers, all of its fighters, the lower-flying but highly survivable A-10 Thunderbolt II, and even drones. In other words, close air support is the least risky, most heavily resourced combat mission the Air Force has."

Lost all credibility with this quote.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"...In other words, close air support is the least risky, most heavily resourced combat mission the Air Force has."
Lost all credibility with this quote.


That level of clueless is stunning but it really matters as he has a soap box from which to make mischief



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
6 hours ago, xaarman said:

Those wings look so awkward for the airframe.

 

2 hours ago, Clark Griswold said:

 

 


Curious as to why you think that - do you think it should be low wing or with more sweep?




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Endurance, observation, and loiter speed (130 kts).  Purpose built.

 

Cooter

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Scorpion testing a gun(s) on the jet

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/paris-scorpion-tests-20mm-cannon-ahead-of-oa-x-438703/

Article doesn't specify if they are incorporating it (20mm) into the airframe - anyone know if this is the case?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

They should not waste their time. More rockets instead. I bet it's a pod.


Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network Forums
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is a pod-mounted gun and it's a requirement for the LAE to demo a gun. The one I've seen is a .50 cal; haven't seen the 20mm personally.

I fully agree that if I'm giving up a hardpoint or 2 for small caliber guns on a fast moving fixed wing, I'd much rather not and have more gas/laser-guided rockets/bombs/hellfire/etc.

Edit to add: LAE = light attack expirament, the new acrynom du jour rather than OA-X.

Edited by nsplayr
  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
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
×
×
  • Create New...