2 minutes ago, ClearedHot said:

A-1K has much of the same OFP as the U-28 (modernized), with double the range/endurance, a large weapons payload, and provisions for THREE (versus two), sensors. I can't think of a place the U-28 can go that the A-1K can't.

True but from the article

“Just a reminder that OA-1K is not a replacement for U-28,” Col. Bronder also said again at this year’s SOF Week conference. “Certainly, it can do some ISR functions, but again, [it] meets a close air support strike requirement.”

It’s the dedicated, allocated to that mission/role I’m commenting on.

There still is IMO a requirement for a manned, medium persistence, multi effects, platform. Maybe not the appetite for it or prioritization for it, but it’s there.

#1 Bronder is a complete buffoon...having dealt with him numerous times we will all be better off when he moves on.

#2 The entire purpose of the A1K was to collapse the stack and reduce the need for so many manned assets.

#3 I do not agree on your supposition of another requirement. The A1K can do everything the U-28 does and more...that drove the fleet size of 75.

1 hour ago, ClearedHot said:

#1 Bronder is a complete buffoon...having dealt with him numerous times we will all be better off when he moves on.

#2 The entire purpose of the A1K was to collapse the stack and reduce the need for so many manned assets.

#3 I do not agree on your supposition of another requirement. The A1K can do everything the U-28 does and more...that drove the fleet size of 75.

It’s not my supposition, it’s Bronder’s words.

I’m not opposed to the A-1K nor it being expanded to missions other than Armed Overwatch, I’m just saying that for some of those other missions another platform would be better & worth the effort.

If the resources aren’t there make do with what you have then.

Edited 14 hours ago14 hr by Clark Griswold

10 hours ago, Clark Griswold said:

It’s not my supposition, it’s Bronder’s words.

I’m not opposed to the A-1K nor it being expanded to missions other than Armed Overwatch, I’m just saying that for some of those other missions another platform would be better & worth the effort.

If the resources aren’t there make do with what you have then.

1. Again, Bronder is a non-rated idiot.

2. What "other missions"? It does ISR, acts as a comm node, acts as a CC node, controls the stack, does CAS, does stand-off strike....truly confused. What is it not doing that the U-28 did? What mission sets do you need a new dedicated airframe to fulfill?

1 hour ago, ClearedHot said:

1. Again, Bronder is a non-rated idiot.

2. What "other missions"? It does ISR, acts as a comm node, acts as a CC node, controls the stack, does CAS, does stand-off strike....truly confused. What is it not doing that the U-28 did? What mission sets do you need a new dedicated airframe to fulfill?

Don’t know Bronder so I’ll just say your point is made.

Other missions I see as those missions where more organic, on board cranium power is desirable. Agnostic stations on said platform, in an open system with operators doing the PED, C2, etc… there and directly supporting the customer while also feeding / interacting with the network of other users.

Probably CASA 235, ATR 42 or bigger (maybe) but not C-130 size.

7 minutes ago, Clark Griswold said:

Don’t know Bronder so I’ll just say your point is made.

Other missions I see as those missions where more organic, on board cranium power is desirable. Agnostic stations on said platform, in an open system with operators doing the PED, C2, etc… there and directly supporting the customer while also feeding / interacting with the network of other users.

Probably CASA 235, ATR 42 or bigger (maybe) but not C-130 size.

Sorry I don't see a need or requirement for such a platform...seems a one off. USAF and SOCOM have moved further and further away from the model you describe because manpower is expensive and they want fewer eyes on screens.

While the U-28 had four people it only has two sensors. The PED was federated just like the A1K, but Skyraider has a third (actually could have four), and the flexibility to allow the off-board PED to control the sensor. Guessing you don't know how much processing power and how many radios/video feeds are on A1K.

On the topic of Bronder...not fully for this forum but the battles over SCM and his general apathy delayed so much capability. Dude is a snarky arse without vision...enjoying the "rank" of his position. With a little less acid AFSOC would have had a LOT more strike power a LOT sooner.

1 hour ago, ClearedHot said:

Sorry I don't see a need or requirement for such a platform...seems a one off. USAF and SOCOM have moved further and further away from the model you describe because manpower is expensive and they want fewer eyes on screens.

While the U-28 had four people it only has two sensors. The PED was federated just like the A1K, but Skyraider has a third (actually could have four), and the flexibility to allow the off-board PED to control the sensor. Guessing you don't know how much processing power and how many radios/video feeds are on A1K.

On the topic of Bronder...not fully for this forum but the battles over SCM and his general apathy delayed so much capability. Dude is a snarky arse without vision...enjoying the "rank" of his position. With a little less acid AFSOC would have had a LOT more strike power a LOT sooner.

Cool, my knowledge/ops experience is probably a bit dated and my A-1K is all open sourced so that’s worth what you pay for it.

I do know what you mean about manpower for PED from my previous work, the volume of data, looking for the diamond in the rough, enough said.

My main advocacy for basically a NG Manned ISR platform acquired by AFSOC that has a bit more capacity (SWAPC plus PAX) is for the ANG mission, ANG units flying said new aircraft.

MOOTW, Grey Zone, Consequence Management, etc. could all be met by a right size, right capes platform that also answers a T10 requirement. Probably in a right sized regional or light airlift turboprop.