21 hours ago, Clark Griswold said:

Good question

@tac airlifter and anyone else who can speak to this (OPSEC and NDAs considered), are the SOCOM requirements the same as the LAAR program's from 2009?

From wiki (reference link bent):

Rough field operations. The RFI requires that the aircraft be capable of operating from semi-prepared runways such as grass or dirt surfaces.
Defensive package. The aircraft will have to include several defensive measures, including a Missile Approach Warning System (MAWS), a Radar warning receiver (RWR), and chaff and flare dispensers.
Armored cockpit and engine.
Long loiter time. The aircraft must be able to fly 5 hour sorties (with 30 minute fuel reserves).
Range. The aircraft must have a 900 nautical mile (1600 km) ferry range.
Data link capability. The aircraft is required to have a line-of-sight data link (with beyond line-of-sight desired) capability of transmitting and receiving still and video images.
Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance (ISR) capabilities. The aircraft will have to laser track and designate targets, as well as track targets using electro-optical and infrared video/still images.
Weaponry. The LAAR aircraft will need at least 4 weapons stores capable of carrying a variety of weapons, including 500 lb bombs, 2.75-inch rockets, rail-launched missiles, and illumination flares. The aircraft will also be capable of aerial gunnery, either with an integrated or pylon mounted gun.
 

Desired traits (but not requirements) included:

Infrared signature suppression for the engine(s).
30,000 ft (9000 m) operational ceiling.
6,000 ft (1800 m) takeoff and landing distance.
Aerobatic capabilities capable of maneuvers such as the Immelmann turn, Cuban eight, and Split S.

I agree with @Danger41 that the fight has moved on (Grey Zone, Hybrid op environments) and a platform for  purely permissive at relatively short ranges is not viable for the on-going and likely future COIN / LIC theaters.

 

If only there was an aircraft in the Air Force inventory that checks all the boxes, (besides loiter time, which a slick T-6 can’t even do) is designed purely for attacking stuff on the ground, has a significantly longer endurance than any pointy nose, with a proven track record dominating in the COIN and traditional environment. But lets cut their funding and scrap 44 of them.

More armed drones sound like a much better use of money than a single engine prop plane that’ll have no standoff and realistically carry maybe 1 or 2 bombs to even make TOLD seeing as it cant AR after takeoff.

1 hour ago, Hawg15 said:

If only there was an aircraft in the Air Force inventory that checks all the boxes, (besides loiter time, which a slick T-6 can’t even do) is designed purely for attacking stuff on the ground, has a significantly longer endurance than any pointy nose, with a proven track record dominating in the COIN and traditional environment. But lets cut their funding and scrap 44 of them.

More armed drones sound like a much better use of money than a single engine prop plane that’ll have no standoff and realistically carry maybe 1 or 2 bombs to even make TOLD seeing as it cant AR after takeoff.

I hear ya but I think SOCOM is looking for a platform with a lighter footprint logistically and financially.  Light Attack vs Heavy Attack.

More RPAs could be a solution but honestly it sounds like overkill when you consider the full footprint to bring that capability to bear.  Physical and telecommunications infrastructure, PED, contingency planning, integration/deconfliction with manned aircraft (civ & mil), etc...

Not hating on RPAs but sometimes it's just easier to send a manned platform for a specific mission to support a specific team/unit for a specific time vs everything needed to have a platform to deliver persistent ISR/Strike.  Just my two cents, RPAs bring a capability more suited for a campaign or long-term operation, then the costs justify the capes brought to that long(er) term fight.  

Likely, this could be solved with a split buy of manned and more unmanned but then economics of a small specialized fleet(s) rears it's ugly head.  Then if you want a tailored solution for specific requirements or additional capability, you have to develop or modify an existing design and you bump into more money, time and risk to develop.

Again, what are they looking for?  How much capability and up to what cost?  

RPA's, we are finding out, are a nightmare to deploy anywhere besides CENTCOM. Turns out, countries with developed Telecom infrastructure dont like it when you want to come in and consume huge portions of their highly limited spectrum. Especially in the middle of a global economic race to develop wireless broadband networks (i.e. 5G) . 

Furthermore, if people could see the SATCOM bill for RPAs you would remove any sense in your brain about them being a low cost option. It's absolutely insane what bandwidth costs! 

Edited February 14, 20205 yr by FLEA

If only there was an aircraft in the Air Force inventory that checks all the boxes, (besides loiter time, which a slick T-6 can’t even do) is designed purely for attacking stuff on the ground, has a significantly longer endurance than any pointy nose, with a proven track record dominating in the COIN and traditional environment. But lets cut their funding and scrap 44 of them.

More armed drones sound like a much better use of money than a single engine prop plane that’ll have no standoff and realistically carry maybe 1 or 2 bombs to even make TOLD seeing as it cant AR after takeoff.

 

It could seek a rough field requirement and operate with a deliberate planning cycle to find/make one for prolonged ops. Something akin to what the expectation with 130s is.

 

Fly in the gas when needed. A 47 or even a CV-22 acting as a FARP is 10k lbs of give easy. Heavier than that is possible, but requires a bit more thought. It wouldn’t even need to stay there as you could YoYo your FARP to a 130 and keep it airborne hold, Gas on call with an expected set up time.

 

We already have this TTP for using RW CAS in the kind of fight we are talking about. We would just need a more restrictive set of requirements when seeking a site for it.

 

 

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Are Bob's actually reading baseops?

https://www.janes.com/article/94311/top-us-air-force-officer-sees-mq-9-reaper-uav-as-prime-candidate-for-armed-overwatch

Edited February 14, 20205 yr by FLEA

there will always be value in having a man-in-the-loop overhead in the stack

16 hours ago, FLEA said:

Are Bob's actually reading baseops?

https://www.janes.com/article/94311/top-us-air-force-officer-sees-mq-9-reaper-uav-as-prime-candidate-for-armed-overwatch

The fact they think a MQ-9 can loiter for 30+ hours shows they know absolutely nothing about what they are talking about. 
 

MQ-9 is great for ISR whack a mole in permissive environments, for a variety of reasons it is horrible for “armed overwatch” CAS, light attack or whatever buzzword label of the day is. 

Edited February 15, 20205 yr by viper154

On 2/12/2020 at 8:39 PM, nsplayr said:https://www.airforcemag.com/socoms-armed-overwatch-expected-to-replace-the-afsoc-u-28-fleet/

Well there ya go. @tac airlifter with the solid gouge as always!

Key to the discussion is COMAFSOC’s comment from the article, “SOCOM needs the aircraft to provide responsive fire support “right there where they need it,” meaning it must operate with a small footprint in an austere deployed location alongside the troops it will support.”. That doesn’t read to me like a centralized low-density asset.

3 hours ago, HU&W said:

Key to the discussion is COMAFSOC’s comment from the article, “SOCOM needs the aircraft to provide responsive fire support “right there where they need it,” meaning it must operate with a small footprint in an austere deployed location alongside the troops it will support.”. That doesn’t read to me like a centralized low-density asset.

If only there were an asset doing literally, exactly this right now 🧐

Maybe we should just update/upgrade/re-platform that capability and call it good.

And it doesn’t have to be either/or when it comes to operating forward with a low footprint and being “centralized low-density.”

SOF assets in other services are great examples where they are ADCON controlled by a handful of home station units/installations, are low density compared to conventional forces, yet operate very forward with little non-organic logistical support required. 

Edited February 15, 20205 yr by nsplayr

Rumor has it the A-29 will be going to a guard unit. 

8 hours ago, gear3green said:

Rumor has it the A-29 will be going to a guard unit. 

I LOVE RUMORS!!!

Which one?

That may or may not be a good thing for that Wing (if RUMINT turns into reality)
I remember the debacle of the C-27, seemed like the AF supported the program after resisting it only to pull the rug out after acquiring when it could.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/cheap-and-deadly-why-special-forces-use-29-super-tucano-fighter-126001

On 2/28/2020 at 11:46 PM, gear3green said:

Rumor has it the A-29 will be going to a guard unit. 

Where is this rumor coming from?

34 minutes ago, Jbraviator said:

Where is this rumor coming from?

AFSOC commander talking with his boys at Hurby. 

Any speculation on which guard unit(s)?

Edited March 6, 20205 yr by Gh0stR1d3r
Previously ambiguous

https://www.janes.com/article/94562/tunisia-cleared-to-buy-wolverine-light-attack-aircraft

https://www.flightglobal.com/fixed-wing/us-air-force-buys-two-a-29-light-attack-aircraft-for-continued-experiment/137153.article

8 hours ago, Tank said:

https://www.flightglobal.com/fixed-wing/us-air-force-buys-two-a-29-light-attack-aircraft-for-continued-experiment/137153.article

“The company plans to deliver aircraft in 2021, with training and support activities continuing through 2024”

Still like my odds for scotch 1 Jan 2021.

This program is never gonna happen.  The AF will keep kicking the can down the road until Congress gives up

2 hours ago, YoungnDumb said:

This program is never gonna happen.  The AF will keep kicking the can down the road until Congress gives up

Luckily for us the 2x A-29s to AFSOC and the 2x AT-6s to ACC have already been purchased.  
 

As for AFSOC Armed Overwatch, it’s a SOCOM initiative and not USAF, so they’ll be no “kicking the can down the road”.

We've bought a whole 2 of them...cool.  How long did it take to get this far?  Whether it is a SOCOM operation or not this project is years delayed and will get so mired in more red tape that it will never reach full potential/operation.  I foresee the AF sticking its hand in the acquisition of the jets and slowing it to a crawl eventually forcing its cancellation.

1 hour ago, YoungnDumb said:

We've bought a whole 2 of them...cool.  How long did it take to get this far?  Whether it is a SOCOM operation or not this project is years delayed and will get so mired in more red tape that it will never reach full potential/operation.  I foresee the AF sticking its hand in the acquisition of the jets and slowing it to a crawl eventually forcing its cancellation.

The 2x A-29s purchased for AFSOC have nothing to do with the SOCOM Armed Overwatch purchase.  
The A-29s are for CAA training.

 

You are right though, the 2x A-29s have taken way too long and the funding got cut down to only enough for the purchase of 2 of them.  

The 2x A-29s purchased for AFSOC have nothing to do with the SOCOM Armed Overwatch purchase.  
The A-29s are for CAA training.
 
You are right though, the 2x A-29s have taken way too long and the funding got cut down to only enough for the purchase of 2 of them.  

Hate to break it to you guys but any and all desire at this point to spend money on this will die in approx 12-14 months.

Afghanistan is over. The primary customer for this aircraft requirement is done doing missions. Every day that continues you move further and further from your single biggest example of justification.

Nobody will care about building this capability for the next mired quagmire war. All the focus will go right back to the big war thinking and acquisitions and the best we can hope for is somebody saves all these power point briefings on a drive somewhere and is in the CSAF and others office on Day 1 of the occupation and rebuild in Venezuela/Sudan/whatever banging it into their heads we can’t afford to consume the F35 fleet flying it around for 10 years doing XCAS against Toyota’s with PKMs on them.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

5 hours ago, Lawman said:

 

Hate to break it to you guys but any and all desire at this point to spend money on this will die in approx 12-14 months.

Afghanistan is over. The primary customer for this aircraft requirement is done doing missions. Every day that continues you move further and further from your single biggest example of justification.

Nobody will care about building this capability for the next mired quagmire war. All the focus will go right back to the big war thinking and acquisitions and the best we can hope for is somebody saves all these power point briefings on a drive somewhere and is in the CSAF and others office on Day 1 of the occupation and rebuild in Venezuela/Sudan/whatever banging it into their heads we can’t afford to consume the F35 fleet flying it around for 10 years doing XCAS against Toyota’s with PKMs on them.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Hate it to break it to you but there are other AORs that SOCOM and AFSOC have been working in and concentrating on other than Afghanistan that Big Blue hasn’t even really cared about (I.e, AFRICOM)...