Jump to content
Baseops Forums
Fud

AF Light Air Support Aircraft

Recommended Posts

8 hours ago, Clark Griswold said:


Modern systems designed from the gear up for dispersed / expeditionary basing
Gripen is already designed this way but my hypothetical resurrected A-7 or Super Scorpion would need designing. Basing a new, modern A-7 on new proven systems and or civil aviation ones like the current iteration of Scorpion is might be one way to get to higher availability rates
There would be a logistical footprint just not an onerous one, shoot for a jet reliable enough that could deploy with 5 to 8 MX per tail


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Don’t forget the logistics associated with a relatively long, well kept, and paved runway required of those mentioned airframes.  Also the extra fuel, parts, and base defenders.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Copy but it would not need more basic logistics than any other MDS, just saying that the design would have baked into it a requirement for low MX/high availability ala the F-20 or Gripen.  

This would not be infinite or excessive (this required level of low maintenance or reliability) but would be high enough to give an operational advantage both in cost and ability to execute sorties reliably and repetitively with a low to modest MX cost.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How about both?

https://www.defensenews.com/2019/05/08/air-force-to-give-sierra-nevada-corp-a-sole-source-contract-for-light-attack-planes-but-textron-will-be-getting-an-award-too/

and

https://www.defensenews.com/opinion/commentary/2019/05/08/light-attack-aircraft-is-the-solution-to-the-us-air-forces-dwindling-fleet/?utm_source=clavis

Second article is penned by a retired GO fighter dude associated with a think tank, maybe the Borg Collective is thinking about this?

Get aggressive Big Blue... tell Congress you need to divest your oldest & brokest jets to pay for the new capes you want (or should want) to rapidly acquire.  

Share this post


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

How about both?

https://www.defensenews.com/2019/05/08/air-force-to-give-sierra-nevada-corp-a-sole-source-contract-for-light-attack-planes-but-textron-will-be-getting-an-award-too/

and

https://www.defensenews.com/opinion/commentary/2019/05/08/light-attack-aircraft-is-the-solution-to-the-us-air-forces-dwindling-fleet/?utm_source=clavis

Second article is penned by a retired GO fighter dude associated with a think tank, maybe the Borg Collective is thinking about this?

Get aggressive Big Blue... tell Congress you need to divest your oldest & brokest jets to pay for the new capes you want (or should want) to rapidly acquire.  

All too little and far too late. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Meanwhile we’re using our most advanced 5th gen jet to hunt down the last remnants of ISIS.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
All too little and far too late. 

Probably - I don’t know if the AF is just doing Kabuki theater to keep Congress at bay and/or if they are worried about the USMC being interested in Light Attack and wanna keep some involvement in it in case it grows legs do they can control or influence it.

That’s a bit conspiratorial honestly but...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Share this post


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

How about both?

https://www.defensenews.com/2019/05/08/air-force-to-give-sierra-nevada-corp-a-sole-source-contract-for-light-attack-planes-but-textron-will-be-getting-an-award-too/

and

https://www.defensenews.com/opinion/commentary/2019/05/08/light-attack-aircraft-is-the-solution-to-the-us-air-forces-dwindling-fleet/?utm_source=clavis

Second article is penned by a retired GO fighter dude associated with a think tank, maybe the Borg Collective is thinking about this?

Get aggressive Big Blue... tell Congress you need to divest your oldest & brokest jets to pay for the new capes you want (or should want) to rapidly acquire.  

Last time Big Blue got aggressive about divesting old aircraft, the A-10 debacle happened.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, MooseAg03 said:

Meanwhile we’re using our most advanced 5th gen jet to hunt down the last remnants of ISIS.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Not even. We wasted an ammo cache and a cave entrance. I think we all know now those terms glorify a tarp over an AK-47 and a tarp over a basement. Wonder how much the munitions cost to take out that tarp and AK-47? 

Edited by FLEA

Share this post


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

Last time Big Blue got aggressive about divesting old aircraft, the A-10 debacle happened.

Valid concern, it would take an AF leader who recognizes it is platform divestment vice mission divestment or ambivalence that is required now and that the mission of a manned Light Attack / Observation platform is NOT the same as Persistent Tactical ISR / Strike.

Don't see any GO singing that tune so not holding my breath.  Not without historical precedent, after Vietnam, the US decides it will never get into LIC / COIN again and it decides to focus on major conventional operations / capabilities and let atrophy the systems and knowledge gained in the last painful, arduous LIC / COIN fight only to get it another one and the cycle repeats itself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

I personally briefed Gen Clarke on Light Attack last week and he was very receptive to what Light Attack can bring to SOCOM and FID.

Hopefully this opens people’s eyes in D.C. because we all know the USAF isn’t fully on board with Light Attack.  The problem though is that SOCOM doesn’t purchase aircraft (just modifies them) and the buy still has to come from the USAF.

 

https://www.defensenews.com/air/2019/05/17/us-special-ops-command-at-odds-with-air-force-over-need-for-light-attack-aircraft/?utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=Socialflow+AIR

Edited by Tank
Edit

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Most of the higher levels of AF leadership come from the CAF. It is my oppinion that building partner relationships is one of the weaker competencies of the CAF community. I say that having worked on two combined staffs as a CAF background myself. CAF leaders simply dont get the international exposure early in their career and by the time they hit the operational levels they are programmed to believe the USAF can go it alone. I can't count the number of times I've done a combined RED FLAG and listened to bemoaning that our PN Air Forces were going to hold us back, limit our TTPs, or otherwise detract from the exercise. There is no excitement to build those relationships. Simply put, I'm not sure this priority will change in the near future. (Disclaimer: I'm not saying this is everyone in the CAF, there are exceptions. This is just my perception of a generalization as a whole.) 

  • Like 2
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Most of the higher levels of AF leadership come from the CAF. It is my oppinion that building partner relationships is one of the weaker competencies of the CAF community.

Wasn’t that the primary driver of SOCOM wanting light attack? Sure, extra firepower is nice, but I thought the primary plan was to equip the 6 SOS and do AvFID with it.

Share this post


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


Wasn’t that the primary driver of SOCOM wanting light attack? Sure, extra firepower is nice, but I thought the primary plan was to equip the 6 SOS and do AvFID with it.

And not just SOCOM, the CAF entertained it for a while too. Yes to outfit our own forces but also to enhance partner training and Interoperability. I just see this as the fundamental hindrance to LAF though. SOCOM wants this FID/SAF tool and CAF kind of wants it but doesn't see the value enough to divest other projects. Again this is all opinion based from me. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And not just SOCOM, the CAF entertained it for a while too. Yes to outfit our own forces but also to enhance partner training and Interoperability. I just see this as the fundamental hindrance to LAF though. SOCOM wants this FID/SAF tool and CAF kind of wants it but doesn't see the value enough to divest other projects. Again this is all opinion based from me. 


We should just have the Army try and develop it. That’ll make the Air Force want its


Then you guys can steal it at the Pentagon level, fly it around for a year or two, kill it, and transfer the money to Viper/Eagle/etc.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

We should just have the Army try and develop it. That’ll make the Air Force want its

Then you guys can steal it at the Pentagon level, fly it around for a year or two, kill it, and transfer the money to Viper/Eagle/etc.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Army loves fixed wing aviation programs... until they get the bill.  

If Congress gave a Manned Fixed Wing Light Attack program to the Army, it would get cannibalized by Big Army like the C-12/C-26 recapitalization efforts were. 

- Break Break -

The AF is the best branch to take the Manned Fixed Wing Light Attack concept and make it a real program, it just doesn't know it.

Repeating unsolicited talking points in case someone at HAF is reading:

- Retire 5-10% of the oldest/brokest 4th gen fighters to get the money and initial cadre.

- Distribute Light Attack Squadrons for multiple training opportunities (conventional, special, foreign customers) and options to ideally retain members considering separation by differing locations (West Coast, Mountain West, Southeast, East Coast and 1 European base).

- Offer light attack cross-training opportunities to Mobility/Reconnaissance aircrew.

- Keep it 5 to 1 deploy to dwell.

- Buy a robust platform, not just one that can meet the requirements set in the mid 2000's; the fights will be at greater ranges, require the platform to grow and adapt and be self-deployable. 

Share this post


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

Army loves fixed wing aviation programs... until they get the bill.  

If Congress gave a Manned Fixed Wing Light Attack program to the Army, it would get cannibalized by Big Army like the C-12/C-26 recapitalization efforts were. 

- Break Break -

The AF is the best branch to take the Manned Fixed Wing Light Attack concept and make it a real program, it just doesn't know it.

Repeating unsolicited talking points in case someone at HAF is reading:

- Retire 5-10% of the oldest/brokest 4th gen fighters to get the money and initial cadre.

- Distribute Light Attack Squadrons for multiple training opportunities (conventional, special, foreign customers) and options to ideally retain members considering separation by differing locations (West Coast, Mountain West, Southeast, East Coast and 1 European base).

- Offer light attack cross-training opportunities to Mobility/Reconnaissance aircrew.

- Keep it 5 to 1 deploy to dwell.

- Buy a robust platform, not just one that can meet the requirements set in the mid 2000's; the fights will be at greater ranges, require the platform to grow and adapt and be self-deployable. 

I don't think getting rid of 4th Gen assets meets the intent of The Air Force We Need.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't think getting rid of 4th Gen assets meets the intent of The Air Force We Need.


Wholesale divestiture would be a mistake, but there are more than a few good examples of units simply collapsing their readiness concentration from the whole aggregate to the concentrated fleet that makes mission. There are aircraft out there long past just being a pain within all the services. While it’s nice to say “we have 200 F-XX’s and 100 B-Y’s” that hardly reflects a well cared for lean force when you spend 30-50% of your maintenance efforts on a fractional percentage of problem/old Iron on the ramp.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
11 hours ago, LookieRookie said:

I don't think getting rid of 4th Gen assets meets the intent of The Air Force We Need.

The concept is nice but to fix it for reality it should be:  The Air Force We Actually Need and Can Afford.

Effective (not necessarily nice) coaches cut players from the team when the time comes rather than holding on, the old players have played well but their time is past and it is time for the team to move on for new talent.

Same applies to aircraft fleets.

Edited by Clark Griswold

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Honestly I don’t even know why you guys take the time to discuss this. We’re not any closer to fielding a new airframe than we were 10 years and 1400 posts ago.

The Air Force will never make the intelligent move to acquire a light attack platform. 

  • Like 4
  • Haha 1
  • Upvote 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Honestly I don’t even know why you guys take the time to discuss this. We’re not any closer to fielding a new airframe than we were 10 years and 1400 posts ago.
The Air Force will never make the intelligent move to acquire a light attack platform. 

Probably but you can make that same case for most AF problems discussed on BO . Net

You have to argue and hope someone empowered is lurking on this forum and will be persuaded by your brilliant posts...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, mcbush said:

Honestly I don’t even know why you guys take the time to discuss this. We’re not any closer to fielding a new airframe than we were 10 years and 1400 posts ago.

The Air Force will never make the intelligent move to acquire a light attack platform. 

They’ll be 2-3x AT-6’s at Nellis and 2-3x A-29’s at Hurlburt; no more, no less...

Honestly, the only LA platform that makes sense is the Boeing/Fulcrum Bronco II but that won’t be IOC until probably 2028.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Light Attack in FY20 NDAA Amendments:

https://rules.house.gov/bill/116/hr-2500

Amendment 73 with 6 FL Republican sponsors (A-29s here we come):

Revised Provides U.S. Special Operations Command procurement authority for Light Attack aircraft in support of the Air Force Special Operations Command (AFSOC) Combat Air Advisor (CAA) mission. It also directs the Secretary of the Air Force to obligate, or transfer to USSOCOM, the necessary funds that have been made available for light attack aircraft to procure the required number of aircraft for Air Combat Command’s Air Ground Operations School and AFSOC’s CAA mission

Edited by Clark Griswold
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




×
×
  • Create New...