Jump to content
Fud

AF Light Air Support Aircraft

Recommended Posts

On 2/23/2018 at 10:52 PM, Clark Griswold said:

Just to grasp at straws but is there anyway that AFSOC could define it's own requirement (separate and different than ACC's) to have a process not so biased?  Any appetite for that?

AFSOC requirement list:

1. Prop

2. Stay out of any C-130 variants way

3. Stay out of any CV-22’s way

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Clark Griswold said:


Why is a prop a requirement?

Name one fixed wing AFSOC aircraft that isn’t a prop...

 

In reality, the Light Attack CONOP is being written as we speak at the AFSOC HQ level.  

Edited by Tank

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Tank said:

Name one fixed wing AFSOC aircraft that isn’t a prop...

In reality, the Light Attack CONOP is being written as we speak at the AFSOC HQ level.  

True but that is a fact not a reason that AFSOC could/should acquire a jet for this requirement.  

Interesting, is this requirement and a subsequent requests for proposals separate from these previous RFI/RFPs?

https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=b1732e28ed804b5d1cc5c2c7315a92f2&tab=core&_cview=1

https://www.fbo.gov/index?print_preview=1&s=opportunity&mode=form&id=b30065477e7b9159bb2687f2cc2a3667&tab=core&tabmode=list

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, I see my joke didn’t land.

If AFSOC wants to buy a $20 mil jet to do FID then Godspeed. If the CAF wants to buy a Brazilian turboprop to do what they’ve had B-1’s doing for a decade and a half, then Godspeed. Just pick something FFS. And don’t ask me to do another survey about it.

  • Haha 2
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Danger41 said:

Okay, I see my joke didn’t land.

If AFSOC wants to buy a $20 mil jet to do FID then Godspeed. If the CAF wants to buy a Brazilian turboprop to do what they’ve had B-1’s doing for a decade and a half, then Godspeed. Just pick something FFS. And don’t ask me to do another survey about it.

Copy...the point lost on most is both the AT-6 AND the A-29 will cost $20 million.  If we are going to make this big investment for 300 aircraft I just wish we would get the most for the $ and the American taxpayer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, Danger41 said:

Okay, I see my joke didn’t land.

If AFSOC wants to buy a $20 mil jet to do FID then Godspeed. If the CAF wants to buy a Brazilian turboprop to do what they’ve had B-1’s doing for a decade and a half, then Godspeed. Just pick something FFS. And don’t ask me to do another survey about it.

Gotcha 

The War Zone summed up what is likely the truth but again one can hope / rant on BO net

Let's Face It, The USAF Isn't Serious About Buying a Light Attack Aircraft

Again, AF look at the long term, Scorpion already has the best performance, capabilities and a design specifically to easily upgrade or accept new capabilities with low cost & risk.  

This is the type of aircraft we used to pursue, the best rather than looking for what is minimally satisfactory.

Not sure if this has been posted yet but an article and assessment from The Aviationist after a fam ride:

https://theaviationist.com/2017/11/16/we-have-flown-in-textrons-scorpion-jet-heres-what-we-have-learned/

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, Clark Griswold said:

Gotcha 

The War Zone summed up what is likely the truth but again one can hope / rant on BO net

Let's Face It, The USAF Isn't Serious About Buying a Light Attack Aircraft

Again, AF look at the long term, Scorpion already has the best performance, capabilities and a design specifically to easily upgrade or accept new capabilities with low cost & risk.  

This is the type of aircraft we used to pursue, the best rather than looking for what is minimally satisfactory.

Not sure if this has been posted yet but an article and assessment from The Aviationist after a fam ride:

https://theaviationist.com/2017/11/16/we-have-flown-in-textrons-scorpion-jet-heres-what-we-have-learned/

 

 

Its not just about us though.

this platform is/should be a bridge to leaving whatever F’d up s-hold country we have decided to aid to the point of competency. It’s paying money to walk away from the breakup and not feel guilty.

Like it or not there are a hell of a lot of allied air forces that cannot/should not be in the Jet game. They can’t maintain it from a pilot training stand point and we will spend far less training country X pilots for them through a T-6 sylubbus vs taking them to UTP, teaching/failing them at all the other crap and then sending them home to learn the Scorpion on their own. 

And seriously if the only real requirement is be ISR 98% of the time with the ability to drop a Hellfire or a GBU49... well they all meet that requirement. 

Edited by Lawman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Open architecture sells the scorpion for me, but it already seems to be out.  I think a-29 would fit the bill well too, better if they adopt open architecture.  For the AT-6, after perusing the OBOGS thread, I can't fathom it being considered for combat.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Lawman said:

Its not just about us though.

this platform is/should be a bridge to leaving whatever F’d up s-hold country we have decided to aid to the point of competency. It’s paying money to walk away from the breakup and not feel guilty.

Like it or not there are a hell of a lot of allied air forces that cannot/should not be in the Jet game. They can’t maintain it from a pilot training stand point and we will spend far less training country X pilots for them through a T-6 sylubbus vs taking them to UTP, teaching/failing them at all the other crap and then sending them home to learn the Scorpion on their own. 

And seriously if the only real requirement is be ISR 98% of the time with the ability to drop a Hellfire or a GBU49... well they all meet that requirement. 

Legit point but I go with an ours and theirs policy, our LAAR and their LAAR policy.  

We buy a higher end aircraft that we can afford and gives us the higher end capabilities we want and that our ROE and in general our way of doing business demands (lots of ISR pre-strike, CDE considerations, PGMs almost exclusively, etc...) and their LAAR that is modern and relevant but cheaper (to operate and train) and is more in line with how X partner nation will likely do business (direct fire weapons, unguided munitions, some ISR pre-strike, etc...).

8 hours ago, HU&W said:

Open architecture sells the scorpion for me, but it already seems to be out.  I think a-29 would fit the bill well too, better if they adopt open architecture.  For the AT-6, after perusing the OBOGS thread, I can't fathom it being considered for combat.  

Ditto on the AT-6, never flew the Texan but following that thread and the myriad problems (OBOGS, cockpit instrument problems, E-seat problems, etc...) I think that design has "issues".

A-29 with open architecture sounds good, an "adaptive pod" (some smaller version of Agile Pod) is what I am imagining.  Current 15" FMV ball could stay and this would be the dual sensor capability to up its game...

If anybody flying the Super T can speak to this, is the architecture capable of becoming open?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Clark Griswold said:

If anybody flying the Super T can speak to this, is the architecture capable of becoming open?

Not a chance in hell.

I still can't believe a superpower would abdicate logistics control to another nation.  If we buy A-29 I hope our politics never run afoul of Brazil.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Not a chance in hell.
I still can't believe a superpower would abdicate logistics control to another nation.  If we buy A-19 I hope our politics never run afoul of Brazil.

Well damn it...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Semper maybe...

https://www.military.com/dodbuzz/2018/06/01/senators-want-100-million-new-marine-corps-light-attack-aircraft.html

Doubt the USMC has even asked for this capability (didn't see it referenced in the article) but would it be reasonable / possible to operate an A-29 / AT-6B from an LHD with a 800+ foot flight deck?  Modified for carrier suitability (upgrades airframe, gear, brakes, higher HP, better prop, etc...)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Clark Griswold said:

Semper maybe...

https://www.military.com/dodbuzz/2018/06/01/senators-want-100-million-new-marine-corps-light-attack-aircraft.html

Doubt the USMC has even asked for this capability (didn't see it referenced in the article) but would it be reasonable / possible to operate an A-29 / AT-6B from an LHD with a 800+ foot flight deck?  Modified for carrier suitability (upgrades airframe, gear, brakes, higher HP, better prop, etc...)

Not comfortably

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Clark Griswold said:

Semper maybe...

https://www.military.com/dodbuzz/2018/06/01/senators-want-100-million-new-marine-corps-light-attack-aircraft.html

Doubt the USMC has even asked for this capability (didn't see it referenced in the article) but would it be reasonable / possible to operate an A-29 / AT-6B from an LHD with a 800+ foot flight deck?  Modified for carrier suitability (upgrades airframe, gear, brakes, higher HP, better prop, etc...)

The OV-10 maintained a capability to be launched and operated off of a Tarawa class amphib carrier, but it was more a gimmick than a maintained capability. They demo’d Operations on both CV and Amphib as part of the testing but like the C-130 landing on a carrier as a COD theory it never was put into practice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Clark Griswold said:

Semper maybe...

https://www.military.com/dodbuzz/2018/06/01/senators-want-100-million-new-marine-corps-light-attack-aircraft.html

Doubt the USMC has even asked for this capability (didn't see it referenced in the article) but would it be reasonable / possible to operate an A-29 / AT-6B from an LHD with a 800+ foot flight deck?  Modified for carrier suitability (upgrades airframe, gear, brakes, higher HP, better prop, etc...)

Considering that to be of any use the A-29 has to fly with two tanks, it would make 800 feet really tight.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Copy all and agreed that LAAR + light carrier ops would have a high pucker factor to it 

If there was a desire for a lighter attack / ISR platform that was carrier suitable, I don't think you could get that much lighter/smaller than around 13-15k lbs (common weight for WWII naval fighters) and for some of the desired capes like range / endurance, it would probably grow to about the size of something like a Westland Wyvern or A-1 Skyraider, both just about 25,000 lbs max takeoff weight would be more likely but I imagine those probably all depended on catapult assist for takeoffs for those gross weights for an LHD (no cats) would likely be a good bit lower...

Still, a carrier suitable efficient modern medium weight attack/reconnaissance aircraft not requiring AR support for a decent vul time and/or range would be a useful capability for a MAGTF 

Edited by Clark Griswold

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

L-159 trying to get into OA-X / LAAR consideration:

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/aero-vodochody-and-iai-pitch-revamped-l-159-for-oa-x-449391/

Has better endurance than I thought (quoted at 2+40 but likely only with clean wings) with the improved version (L-159 vs. L-39) via a new wet wing, ref here.  Still way way short of a Scorpion Jet but another aircraft to consider, then not buy...

Buy a jet powered OA-X / LAAR capable of some A-A threat or target simulation (cruise missile, slow flying enemy RPA, etc..) as an additional mission and train crew force to provide some Red Air for fighter units, profit.  No doubt that it would not be as robust as a dedicated aggressor aircraft / crew but something is better than nothing.  

You get more missions out of platform you need to buy anyway and instead of min running the OA-X acquisition (if it happens) you get the jet bringing much higher levels of performance (speed, range, altitude) to its primary mission set...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/7/2018 at 10:17 PM, Clark Griswold said:

Copy all and agreed that LAAR + light carrier ops would have a high pucker factor to it 

If there was a desire for a lighter attack / ISR platform that was carrier suitable, I don't think you could get that much lighter/smaller than around 13-15k lbs (common weight for WWII naval fighters) and for some of the desired capes like range / endurance, it would probably grow to about the size of something like a Westland Wyvern or A-1 Skyraider, both just about 25,000 lbs max takeoff weight would be more likely but I imagine those probably all depended on catapult assist for takeoffs for those gross weights for an LHD (no cats) would likely be a good bit lower...

Still, a carrier suitable efficient modern medium weight attack/reconnaissance aircraft not requiring AR support for a decent vul time and/or range would be a useful capability for a MAGTF 

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/usmc-reveals-new-details-of-mux-acquisition-plan-449304/

The USMC plans to make an acquisition decision by 2020, according to the documents. The first aircraft should be ready to deploy from a land base with an “early operational capability” by 2025. More capabilities for the land-based fleet should be rolled out in two years. The first ship-based deployment should come in 2029, the USMC acquisition planning documents show.

The aircraft must be capable of reaching a higher speed (300kt) and altitude (25,000ft) than the USMC’s manned MV-22B Osprey tiltrotors, plus land vertically and operate from ships. The aircraft must be able to carry up to 1,360kg (3,000lb) of payload internally as a threshold requirement, and loiter on station up to 350nm from the base for eight to 12h. It also must be able to hover out of ground effect at 6,000ft on a 35℃ (95°F) day.

The USMC wants the MUX to perform a broad set of missions, according to the new acquisition documents. It would finally provide a high-speed armed escort aircraft for the MV-22B, carrying a load of eight Lockheed Martin AGM-114 Hellfire missiles. It could also carry other weapons for different missions, including an anti-radiation missile for an electronic warfare mission and air-to-air missiles for an airborne early warning mission.

The USMC also wants the MUX to provide a variety of surveillance and communications services for Marines on the ground and for the amphibious ready group afloat. The aircraft would have to carry an electro-optical/infrared sensor during any mission, but the USMC also desires a sophisticated radar and potentially advanced sensors, including hyperspectral.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/usmc-reveals-new-details-of-mux-acquisition-plan-449304/

The USMC plans to make an acquisition decision by 2020, according to the documents. The first aircraft should be ready to deploy from a land base with an “early operational capability” by 2025. More capabilities for the land-based fleet should be rolled out in two years. The first ship-based deployment should come in 2029, the USMC acquisition planning documents show.

The aircraft must be capable of reaching a higher speed (300kt) and altitude (25,000ft) than the USMC’s manned MV-22B Osprey tiltrotors, plus land vertically and operate from ships. The aircraft must be able to carry up to 1,360kg (3,000lb) of payload internally as a threshold requirement, and loiter on station up to 350nm from the base for eight to 12h. It also must be able to hover out of ground effect at 6,000ft on a 35℃ (95°F) day.

The USMC wants the MUX to perform a broad set of missions, according to the new acquisition documents. It would finally provide a high-speed armed escort aircraft for the MV-22B, carrying a load of eight Lockheed Martin AGM-114 Hellfire missiles. It could also carry other weapons for different missions, including an anti-radiation missile for an electronic warfare mission and air-to-air missiles for an airborne early warning mission.

The USMC also wants the MUX to provide a variety of surveillance and communications services for Marines on the ground and for the amphibious ready group afloat. The aircraft would have to carry an electro-optical/infrared sensor during any mission, but the USMC also desires a sophisticated radar and potentially advanced sensors, including hyperspectral.

 



VSTOL huh.... great guys. Let’s bring the requirement that made the F-35 such a god damned nightmare in acquisitions.


Oh and Hellfire. Because if we’re gonna commit to a capability let’s go with a missile that is on its way out just as soon as JAGM shows up. Don’t get me wrong the R model is an amazing little toy (damn thing will turn around street corners) but it’s getting serious shortcomings with its age and size limits.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Lawman said:

 

 


VSTOL huh.... great guys. Let’s bring the requirement that made the F-35 such a god damned nightmare in acquisitions.


Oh and Hellfire. Because if we’re gonna commit to a capability let’s go with a missile that is on its way out just as soon as JAGM shows up. Don’t get me wrong the R model is an amazing little toy (damn thing will turn around street corners) but it’s getting serious shortcomings with its age and size limits.

 

 

Regardless...in today's DOD timelines....add 5 years min to the dates in this article.  

 

ATIS

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It will be interesting to see what this Swiss army knife of aircraft looks like once all the gold plating is finished
 


If we can make it more expensive we can justify getting 4 more F-whatever’s when we cancel the whole program 11 years in.

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



×