Jump to content
Baseops Forums
Fud

AF Light Air Support Aircraft

Recommended Posts

Hover at 6,000’ at 35C? I’d love to see how this thing performs engine-out


Unfortunately our operations in Afghanistan have mandated that minimum requirement into stone....

You know because pushing the envelope on aircraft performance well past the current bench marks is way easier than say.... making a bigger f’ing FARP with a few extra T-walls and not surrounding them with OA254 antennas so you can make a VMC approach/takeoff.
  • Haha 2

Share this post


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

 

 


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.

 

And suddenly we have funding for a 7th Gen Fighter that will probably be designed with a stick and OBOGS system in it but no seat and delivered 20 years to late.

But as long as control + Alt + Delete works :thumbsup:

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/14/2018 at 9:13 AM, ATIS said:

That is some serious capes wish list, not saying it is a bridge too far but is that really necessary in one platform?  Or could these MUXs be one common platform but have variants to specialize to keep from getting into the trap of it has to do every mission awesomely and likely command an awesome price tag.

Returning to the AF Light Attack subject, second phase of the "experiment" is underway...

http://www.af.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/1514033/second-phase-of-light-attack-experiment-underway/

Just pick one... and then actually buy it.

Informal survey - which would you buy for the Big Blue?  AT-6B or A-29.  Unfortunately Scorpion is not an option nor any other design (L-159 ALCA, OV-10X, etc...) and it is one of those two (not that they are bad choices) but that is all there is.

Share this post


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

Informal survey - which would you buy for the Big Blue?  AT-6B or A-29.  Unfortunately Scorpion is not an option nor any other design (L-159 ALCA, OV-10X, etc...) and it is one of those two (not that they are bad choices) but that is all there is.

AT-6B.  What lurks behind the curtain in A-29 production land is of no value to us either as war fighters or taxpayers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A-29,  combat proven.  It's legitimately ready to buy off the shelf.  While I like the AT-6 I just foresee more testing/wasting time/money.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, RegularJoe said:

   AT-6B.  What lurks behind the curtain in A-29 production land is of no value to us either as war fighters or taxpayers

Copy - did you fly the Super T or still do?  Asked as I took a closer look at your account image (Super T initial cadre)

Concur with AT-6B, avionics are more advanced (up to MIL STD 1760) and while built in .50 cals would be cool, I doubt they would be worth it vs. another platform that can employ the more advanced PGMs in the inventory.

Not sure if this link has been posted but it is a pretty good side by side comparison of Wolverine vs. Super T:

https://rhk111smilitaryandarmspage.wordpress.com/2014/01/17/the-a-29b-super-tucano-versus-the-at-6b-texan-ii/

I think the quoted price of AT-6B at 14 mil a copy is a bit low but it is cheaper than the Super T, better avionics, and some performance advantages.  

Plan to finally get this plane (about 14 years late but better than never...):

- Pick the AT-6B at the end of Phase II of LAE in August

- Plan on buying 175 for the AF and get the USN/USMC to buy 50-75.  Half AD, Half ARC, FTU is a joint venture at a Guard unit with political pull to get the Guard friendly elements of the MIC to help push the rope.

- Distribute the squadrons to retain some of the MQ-9 crew force by offering dual qual opportunities or homesteading, this would also be done in conjunction with an honest effort to improve QoL for RPA folks.  More & better base choices across several time zones.  11s & 18s could fly pilot / cso respectively and for enlisted sensors, make a CCAF degree and a commander's recommendation enough for an OTS program with a designated follow on and flying opportunity in the cso station.  

- Before we lose all good will towards us, get some of the Allies that join us on foreign adventures to buy a LAAR also, up to them on which.  But establish that when the West goes to fight long wars in the Arc of Instability, we are going to do it somewhat efficiently and not wear out the fast jets doing NTISR.

Just buy it AF....

at-6_02_1024.jpg

Edited by Clark Griswold
  • Like 1

Share this post


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

- Pick the AT-6B at the end of Phase II of LAE in August 2050

FIFY, since we all know the AF won't actually make a decision/do anything worthwhile for at least 3 more years, and then even after that you gotta pork barrel the  hell out of it.

Share this post


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

FIFY, since we all know the AF won't actually make a decision/do anything worthwhile for at least 3 more years, and then even after that you gotta pork barrel the  hell out of it.

We shall see, there is FINALLY some money in the NDAA.

Share this post


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

Copy - did you fly the Super T or still do?  Asked as I took a closer look at your account image (Super T initial cadre)

 

Just buy it AF....

 

I was a senior exec for the prime, but eventually got tired of "Taco" stories about how great we were.

A-29 is a good aircraft as a whole but design for USA was not the same as the one build in SA for years therefore needs to be considered like any brand new design and it has some severe struggles that people on the end side probably don't know about..

Has four fuel pumps because known failure rate of these is 90%+

Has only one hyd pump which known failure rate is 65%+

Have to fly with two tanks to ensure any sort of reasonable range however when you fly with tanks the .50 casings bounce off the tanks and get stuck in the flaps damaging them once you move them.

Guns jam all the time due to design issues with empty shute

If you fly with a POD then centerline station is unusable

Hud is basically worthless as the PSU failure rate is 98%+

Fuel system wont transfer, single point fueling is problematic at best.

Gear handle switch down doesn't always equal gear down.

OBOGs is like trying to sucking air through a straw

 

It goes on and on, so as I said before AT-6B would be my choice based on Beechcraft's years of experience and working with a known design.  A-29 is really a new design that has never been tested before that is being directed by SA mgmt that has no experience or idea how to build a US Military aircraft.

  • Confused 1
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


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

I was a senior exec for the prime, but eventually got tired of "Taco" stories about how great we were.

A-29 is a good aircraft as a whole but design for USA was not the same as the one build in SA for years therefore needs to be considered like any brand new design and it has some severe struggles that people on the end side probably don't know about..

Has four fuel pumps because known failure rate of these is 90%+

Has only one hyd pump which known failure rate is 65%+

Have to fly with two tanks to ensure any sort of reasonable range however when you fly with tanks the .50 casings bounce off the tanks and get stuck in the flaps damaging them once you move them.

Guns jam all the time due to design issues with empty shute

If you fly with a POD then centerline station is unusable

Hud is basically worthless as the PSU failure rate is 98%+

Fuel system wont transfer, single point fueling is problematic at best.

Gear handle switch down doesn't always equal gear down.

OBOGs is like trying to sucking air through a straw

 

It goes on and on, so as I said before AT-6B would be my choice based on Beechcraft's years of experience and working with a known design.  A-29 is really a new design that has never been tested before that is being directed by SA mgmt that has no experience or idea how to build a US Military aircraft.

Copy all

Quite the list of deficiencies.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can anyone give me rough estimate costs for some of the competitive designs? I’m working on a project.

Share this post


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

Copy all

Quite the list of deficiencies.

 

Kind of like expecting this

Aston-Martin-Vanquish-for-Computer-Wallpaper-150x150.jpg.589a0118fd6fcb54904ec21698b72313.jpg

 

Then getting to the dealership and getting this

 

Family-Truckster-sales-still-blog-crop-1.jpg.49133494fe3c45d2db5a6a8037240a0e.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kind of like expecting this
Aston-Martin-Vanquish-for-Computer-Wallpaper-150x150.jpg.589a0118fd6fcb54904ec21698b72313.jpg
 
Then getting to the dealership and getting this
 
Family-Truckster-sales-still-blog-crop-1.jpg.49133494fe3c45d2db5a6a8037240a0e.jpg

I know that feeling all too well

You think you hate it now but wait till you fly it...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, di1630 said:

Can anyone give me rough estimate costs for some of the competitive designs? I’m working on a project.

From the article ref here the AT-6B is quoted at 14 million and A-29 at 21 million, seems a bit low for the AT-6B and the article is dated from 2014 with references, some are wiki so if you want to cite it I would follow it up but those numbers of the mid teens to low 20's seem reasonable for the turboprops.

Guessing at $1500 a flight hour with everything factored.

Scorpion is often quoted at 20 million a copy but I suspect with some more features that a customer would want (AR capability, Air to Air capable radar, defensive suite, etc...) that price would climb.  Just a WAG but 25 million a copy seems reasonable.

Guessing at $3000 a flight hour with everything factored.  But for a mission requiring no AR support for Vul time, it's still a bargain.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, RegularJoe said:

A-29 is a good aircraft as a whole but design for USA was not the same as the one build in SA for years therefore needs to be considered like any brand new design

A-29 is really a new design that has never been tested before that is being directed by SA mgmt that has no experience or idea how to build a US Military aircraft.

Damn.  Didn't realize that.

Always seemed like the A-29 was marketed as some "off-the-shelf" solution.  Didn't realize Sierra Nevada had changed the design so significantly. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My question (forgive if stupid) is why did they drastically change the design?  If it was working just fine then why screw with it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, YoungnDumb said:

My question (forgive if stupid) is why did they drastically change the design?  If it was working just fine then why screw with it?

Clearly you haven't met the USAF acquisitions process.

72fee3_82157b13adcb4f6fbf51eade32ca2311~mv2.gif.d91d32fd5e15e6f10a29efc51351b1ff.gif

Edited by FourFans130

Share this post


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

My question (forgive if stupid) is why did they drastically change the design?  If it was working just fine then why screw with it?

I'm not going to get into capabilities on an open forum but I will answer your question and you can figure out the rest.

  1. SA uses the original A-29 to fight drug dealers, cartels and wanna be terrorist, we intend to use it to fight people pissed off at us with means to seriously fire back.
  2. USAF is not going to buy a 20 year old design without some gold plating on it to make everyone happy that it is spiffy and new
  3. Last time we had a prop driven aircraft who's role primarily dropped bombs was a Skyraider.... come on now.
Edited by RegularJoe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, RegularJoe said:

Last time we had a prop driven aircraft who's role primarily dropped bombs was a Skyraider.... come on now.

We will just ignore the entire AC-130/KC-130 mission as well as the MQ-1 and MQ-9. 

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



×