Guest ImpRoV Posted July 21, 2009 Posted July 21, 2009 Secret Program Works to Field SEAL Plane In a move that harkens back to the days of recycled World War II torpedo bombers sheep-dipped as close air support planes, the Navy intends to field a limited number of turbo-prop attack planes outfitted with the most modern surveillance, tracking and weapons systems to help special ops forces keep track of bad guys and, in a pinch, put warheads on foreheads. Call it an AH-1 Skyraider on steroids – a “Back to the Future”-resurrection of a kind of plane last seen pounding enemy positions with rockets, guns and bombs over Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos in the 1960s. Code named “Imminent Fury,” the classified, year-long program has so far produced one fully-outfitted plane and is set to field four more to directly support SEALs and other operators on the battlefield in Afghanistan. According to a source close to the program who declined to be named, the Navy has leased an EMB-314 Super Tucano for the job. Made by the Brazilian aerospace company Embraer, it is now being tested on desert ranges in California and the service’s top test facility at Patuxent River Naval Air Station, Md. The Navy loaded it up with sensors and weapons systems that “would make an F-16 pilot blush,” the source said. With top end electro-optical and infrared sensors, laser and GPS-guided bombs, rockets, twin .50 cal. machine guns, encrypted radios – and even the capability to tie in UAV surveillance feeds – the Super Tucano outfitted for the SEALs is a ground-pounder’s angel from above. Military.com contacted the Navy for comment on this story, but despite a detailed public briefing on the program in March by a high-ranking program official, the service declined to elaborate on the program other than to say in a written statement: “Imminent Fury is a classified Navy initiative to address urgent warfighter needs. Initial developmental testing has been promising and the Navy is currently conducting discussions with our Joint partners on various courses of action as this initiative moves forward.” News of the Imminent Fury program comes as commanders in Afghanistan wrestle with the persistent problem of civilian casualties resulting from errant or mistaken bomb strikes – typically from aircraft high above the battlefield. A recent investigation report on a high-profile friendly-fire incident in Farah province showed that high-altitude B-1 bombers had little ability to discriminate enemy from civilians during several bombings in support of Marine spec ops forces under Taliban assault. Many argue that low-altitude aircraft that can fly for long periods over combat zones loaded with various weapons are needed to avoid such incidents. For advocates of the Imminent Fury program, the Super Tucano – with its five-hour endurance – fits the bill for a so-called “counter insurgency aircraft.” “The SEALs said ‘we want a persistent capability at low cost, small footprint and turbo-prop aircraft to do armed intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance missions,’ ” the source close to the program said. “Everyone who gets briefed on this program has been blown away.” Over the past year, both Navy and Air Force pilots have flown the leased Super Tucano in tests. According to the source, the single-engine, two-pilot plane has successfully dropped both laser and GPS guided bombs, as well as a wide range of guided and unguided rockets. According to statistics from an Embraer brochure, the EMB-314 has a maximum speed of nearly 370 mph and a maximum ceiling of 35,000 feet. The plane can take off and land in just under 3,000 feet and can carry a maximum load of nearly 3,500 pounds. The initial cadre of four SEAL-supporting Super Tucanos will be flown by Navy pilots activated as individual augmentees, and multiple sources close to the program report that aviators are clamoring to get involved with the program. But it is still unclear whether Imminent Fury will get off the ground since funding for the program is in doubt. Sources say there is no money earmarked for the program in the 2010 budget but that the service “is hoping for some reprogramming authority” to move funds from other accounts to buy the four planes requested by the SEALs. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- from https://www.military.com/news/article/secret-program-works-to-field-seal-plane.html and https://newwars.wordpress.com/2009/03/14/jsf-alternative-super-tucano/ Oh man I hope they get their funding to make this work. I'd love to see the Tucano with all these modern gadgets.
Steve Davies Posted July 21, 2009 Posted July 21, 2009 Military.com are five months behind everyone else: IW Wing Thread
OverTQ Posted July 21, 2009 Posted July 21, 2009 Military.com are five months behind everyone else: IW Wing Thread Buy 186 instead of 187 F-22 and you could buy a 100 EMB 314's.
nsplayr Posted July 21, 2009 Posted July 21, 2009 Buy 186 instead of 187 F-22 and you could buy a 100 EMB 314's. Seriously...that's my whole argument over on the F-22 thread. By realizing some savings on the F-22 we can increase our capability in areas where we're weaker. Giving SEALS and other SOF a fleet of dedicated FAC-A/CAS/ISR/whatever-they-decide aircraft seems like a good investment vs. 1 additional F-22...
Wolf424 Posted July 21, 2009 Posted July 21, 2009 I thought we were going to press with the AT-6B, are they going with the Super Tucano instead?
brickhistory Posted July 22, 2009 Posted July 22, 2009 Seriously...that's my whole argument over on the F-22 thread. By realizing some savings on the F-22 we can increase our capability in areas where we're weaker. Giving SEALS and other SOF a fleet of dedicated FAC-A/CAS/ISR/whatever-they-decide aircraft seems like a good investment vs. 1 additional F-22... Why do you argue the either/or? Both are vitally important. By the way, this COIN is all fun and games until somebody gets an SA-14 or better as Ivan found out before us.
Guest mitch Posted July 22, 2009 Posted July 22, 2009 Buy 186 instead of 187 F-22 and you could buy a 100 EMB 314's. and an aircraft that can make an immediate contribution in the current conflict. this article is pretty fantastical but i did see one in the SAR hangar at Fallon in march. BH, there are plenty of aircraft that operate routinely within the wez of better MANPADS, but short of t/o and landing when will an F-22 ever be in the SA-14 wez?
OverTQ Posted July 22, 2009 Posted July 22, 2009 By the way, this COIN is all fun and games until somebody gets an SA-14 or better as Ivan found out before us. That is the flight environment in which many of us live all the time. Somebody has to get down and dirty to take those guys out.
nsplayr Posted July 22, 2009 Posted July 22, 2009 Why do you argue the either/or? Both are vitally important. Because (despite recent trends in domestic spending...) money is not unlimited. And I disagree that more F-22s are "vitally important," especially compared to some other acquisitions priorities. That is the flight environment in which many of us live all the time. Somebody has to get down and dirty to take those guys out. Exactly...some risk is inherent in flying low and slow
brickhistory Posted July 22, 2009 Posted July 22, 2009 I don't argue the need for COIN. I do argue the need for undisputed air superiority. 187 F-22s may/may not settle a future fight or deter said fight from occuring. 300+ probably would. I do argue we can and should have both.
Guest bunk22 Posted July 23, 2009 Posted July 23, 2009 (edited) By the way, this COIN is all fun and games until somebody gets an SA-14 or better as Ivan found out before us. My guess is this scenario has been tested with the Super T. Edited July 23, 2009 by bunk22
brickhistory Posted July 23, 2009 Posted July 23, 2009 Ok, to clarify for the last time for me: I am not slamming or against the Super Tucano. We can probably use it; I'm not knowledgable or expert enough to say whether it's a good choice or not. I trust that those that did the testing do have that knowledge and expertise, thus it being purchased and deployed to assist the guys with knives in their teeth. But just as SecDef Gates says the F-22 doesn't bring anything to today's fight, neither would, necessarily, a Super Tucano to the next fight where we might not have air dominance. In that case, more than a few F-22s sure would be a "must have" not a "nice to have." I say both are good, necessary capabilites that the US should possess. Not either/or.
tac airlifter Posted July 23, 2009 Posted July 23, 2009 It's embarassing that the Navy is buying these before the AF. The perception is that we just can't seem to get our shit together and buy stuff the warfighters need. It's true that we're looking to the future as service, but we might be looking to far into the future at the expense of the present.
gmwalk Posted July 23, 2009 Posted July 23, 2009 Maybe this is a dumb question, but since the Navy is buying this is it going to be carrier qualified? I can see AF leadership getting all worked up if the Navy starts buying and using strictly land-based aircraft.
Guest CA Posted July 23, 2009 Posted July 23, 2009 Maybe this is a dumb question, but since the Navy is buying this is it going to be carrier qualified? I can see AF leadership getting all worked up if the Navy starts buying and using strictly land-based aircraft. Based off this quote in the OP story "on the battlefield in Afghanistan.", I'm going to assume that they are land based. Doesn't mean that they couldn't land on a carrier, but I think the specific mission will be land based.
Guest ski&fly fast Posted July 23, 2009 Posted July 23, 2009 It's embarassing that the Navy is buying these before the AF. The perception is that we just can't seem to get our shit together and buy stuff the warfighters need. It's true that we're looking to the future as service, but we might be looking to far into the future at the expense of the present. I agree, but I also realize the need for more F-22's and F-35's, a new tanker, exc. The reality of the situation is that we are not going to get everything, especially under the current administration. Programs like this, are easily more justifiable and are within the AF mission. While we're to busy squabbling about other huge programs, we are going to lose CAS missions like the AT-6/ Tucano that are easily justifiable and are needed immediately. Therefore, I hope the AF finds a happy medium, but doesn't overlook sweet programs like this and lose them to the navy or army--
OverTQ Posted July 23, 2009 Posted July 23, 2009 Even if F-22s disappear from the budget, the Air Force will still receive money for aircraft it did not request. The House appropriations bill includes: * $674 million for three C-17 cargo planes not requested. * $199 million for three C-37 VIP jets. The Air Force asked for $66 million to buy one of the 15-passenger Gulfstream aircraft. * $354 million for three large C-40 VIP jets. The Pentagon asked for $154 million to buy one of these 110-passenger Boeing 737s. * $1.7 billion to buy 18 F/A-18E/F fighters, which is nine more than the Pentagon sought. * $649 million for three E-2D Hawkeye carrier-based early warning radar planes. The Navy wanted $507 million to buy two planes. Lawmakers trimmed $532 million from the request to buy 28 F-35 Joint Strike Fighters: 14 for the Marine Corps, four for the Navy and 10 for the Air Force. The Pentagon asked for $6.1 billion and got $5.6 billion. But the spending bill adds $430 million to the request for $3.6 billion for continued development of the F-35, and another $560 million not sought to continue developing an alternative engine for the plane. The bill includes $440 million so the Air Force can keep trying to buy a new fleet of aerial refueling tankers. The committee said the service can choose either one vendor or two, and it urged the Air Force to buy 36 new tankers a year rather than 12 to 15 in earlier plans. By william matthews Published: 22 Jul 2009 15:02 It appears to me that the AF (and with all branches to a degree) has become such a high budget organization, that congress is using them for completely political purposes. Even if the leadership does come up with a good mix of aircraft that will fit the mission, congress is likely to do what it wants. A $350 million dollar aircraft employs a lot more voting constituents than a $3 million dollar EMB314. Maybe Ike should have said "Beware of the defense industrial complex and their paid for politicians".
Guest ski&fly fast Posted July 23, 2009 Posted July 23, 2009 By william matthews Published: 22 Jul 2009 15:02 It appears to me that the AF (and with all branches to a degree) has become such a high budget organization, that congress is using them for completely political purposes. Even if the leadership does come up with a good mix of aircraft that will fit the mission, congress is likely to do what it wants. A $350 million dollar aircraft employs a lot more voting constituents than a $3 million dollar EMB314. Maybe Ike should have said "Beware of the defense industrial complex and their paid for politicians". Yea kinda hard to be an efficient fighting force when the tools needed are not necessarily dictated by the mission, but instead by politicians trying to get votes by using military contracts. Granted the DOD submits their requests, as you showed it doesn't really seem to matter, it's all about getting voted back in.
nsplayr Posted July 23, 2009 Posted July 23, 2009 It's embarassing that the Navy is buying these before the AF. The perception is that we just can't seem to get our shit together and buy stuff the warfighters need. It's true that we're looking to the future as service, but we might be looking to far into the future at the expense of the present. Agree 100%. I'm not sure the rest of the Big Blue AF sees it this way (i.e. we appear to be from the same MAJCOM that generally is more low-intensity/ground-warfare focused). We don't want to be constantly fighting small fires to the point where we don't prepare for the hypothetical "big one," but at the same time it doesn't make sense to send the firefighters on a training exercise when the house is burning down... Yea kinda hard to be an efficient fighting force when the tools needed are not necessarily dictated by the mission, but instead by politicians trying to get votes by using military contracts. Granted the DOD submits their requests, as you showed it doesn't really seem to matter, it's all about getting voted back in. Very true and TQ's quote about getting stuff we don't want all the time is accurate as well. I think the reason the F-22 has gotten so much more attention is because of the pricetag and because the administration has made it a high-vis item and an example of defense acquisitions reform. I still vote for the fleet of Tucanos/AT-6/OV-XX COIN aircraft instead of 1 or 2 more F-22s since it means A) more impact on the battle right now, and B) more cockpits for dudes to sit in down the line
I don't exist Posted July 25, 2009 Posted July 25, 2009 Agree 100%. I'm not sure the rest of the Big Blue AF sees it this way (i.e. we appear to be from the same MAJCOM that generally is more low-intensity/ground-warfare focused). We don't want to be constantly fighting small fires to the point where we don't prepare for the hypothetical "big one," but at the same time it doesn't make sense to send the firefighters on a training exercise when the house is burning down... Very true and TQ's quote about getting stuff we don't want all the time is accurate as well. I think the reason the F-22 has gotten so much more attention is because of the pricetag and because the administration has made it a high-vis item and an example of defense acquisitions reform. I still vote for the fleet of Tucanos/AT-6/OV-XX COIN aircraft instead of 1 or 2 more F-22s since it means A) more impact on the battle right now, and B) more cockpits for dudes to sit in down the line Hey bro, AFSOC needs to get out of this "we are better than you" mentality. Everyone cries foul when they see the Raptor procurement and O&M costs, but riddle me this. How much does a new U-Model Gunship cost? What does it cost to maintain one? Sure, we're not trying to buy 187 Gunships, but we've got to move past this "AFSOC is so much better than ACC" b@llsh@t! Do you think AFSOC leadership cares about a light strike platform when they want to buy the next generation gunship, the talon replacement, or to continue to get the CV-22 fielded. Every General has priorities and they don't normally match up with what the Captains think should be happening. The reason AFSOC won't be flying a Super T anytime soon is because of the Talon and Gunship mafias in AFSOC that are afraid some of the fighter jocks from ACC will make the switch and start taking away some of their glory. The boys on the ground were asking for FAC(A)s back in 2002, but AFSOC did not answer the call and won't. The recommendation to the SOCOM commander was that this is not a SOF specific platform or mission so there is no need to use SOCOM money for it. That's why the Navy had to ask the Air Force (ACC) to help them pay for it for the Navy SOF guys. Sarcasm: Isn't AFSOC the SOF air arm? To make matters worse, ACC is peforming a land grab to prevent them from being accused of not supporting the war effort. The ACC commander says that light strike is not an AFSOC mission. Further, all the BRAC'd A-10 units are frothing at the mouth over the possibility of getting back in the ground attack game. In case you didn't know, all the BRAC'd A-10 units are ACC gained. Don't be blinded by what you think the AFSOC mission is. Sure, the bros flying the line are dedicated to hacking the mission, but that doesn't mean that the leadership has the same mindset. If leadership was as dedicated to the mission as they say they are, if they really thought of us as part of SOF, they would uphold the SOF truths. The running joke in my unit is, "how many of the SOF truths did you break today?" Bottom line: no matter how much the Captains say we need this to be AFSOC owned, it won't be because of tribalism and parochialism on both sides of ACC and AFSOC. The Air Force, ACC, and AFSOC will continue to be viewed by the other services as more concerned about buying the latest greatest toy instead of doing what needs to be done to support the dudes getting shot at on the ground.
nsplayr Posted July 25, 2009 Posted July 25, 2009 Hey man, I agree with a lot of your points and I think you took my comments out of context. What I'm saying is that a lot of the CGOs in AFSOC seem to "get it" in terms of the need for more low-and-slow capability to support current operations. I personally don't give a crap whether light strike is an ACC asset (most likely) or an AFSOC asset. It's be nice if AFSOC could own them since I'd have a better shot of flying this imaginary platform down the road but really that doesn't matter. How much does a new U-Model Gunship cost? What does it cost to maintain one? Sure, we're not trying to buy 187 Gunships... I'm not an expert here but a 6-9 second google search pulls up around $190 million per U-boat including the costs of the actual C-130 and $350 million or so for an F-22. (the AF factsheets that list $141m as a unit cost are kidding themselves). And I bolded the fact that blows the comparison out of the water...we have, what, 17 U-model gunships and we want to have 187 F-22s?!? Comparing the costs of the two is not useful. Do you think AFSOC leadership cares about a light strike platform when they want to buy the next generation gunship, the talon replacement, or to continue to get the CV-22 fielded. Every General has priorities and they don't normally match up with what the Captains think should be happening. Well since I'm not a general I can only talk about what I think the spending priorities should be. Trust me, I'm well aware that light fixed-wing is not the prime focus of the AFSOC leaders, but that doesn't change my argument that I'd rather have a fleet of light-strike planes (owned by whatever MAJOCM you like) over 1-2 additional F-22s. The boys on the ground were asking for FAC(A)s back in 2002, but AFSOC did not answer the call and won't. Disagree. Probably should leave it at that. Don't be blinded by what you think the AFSOC mission is. Sure, the bros flying the line are dedicated to hacking the mission, but that doesn't mean that the leadership has the same mindset. If leadership was as dedicated to the mission as they say they are, if they really thought of us as part of SOF, they would uphold the SOF truths. The running joke in my unit is, "how many of the SOF truths did you break today?" Last time I checked it was 2.5. Only breaking the "Effective SOF forces cannot be created after a crisis occurs" truth 1/2 way because our current conflicts have been going on for long enough that they don't qualify as crises anymore and also because the forces that have been produced have been very effective. Quality over quantity is definitely being broken but when the Combatant Commanders are screaming for more bodies it's hard not to break that truth and still "support the war effort." Inherent in that is breaking the "SOF cannot be mass produced" truth. We're not kidding ourselves here thinking we're cowboys that can save the AF...honestly the only reason I even brought up AFSOC into any of this was because it appeared that tac airlifter and I were from the same base and agreed on a point that others were against. Bottom line: no matter how much the Captains say we need this to be AFSOC owned, it won't be because of tribalism and parochialism on both sides of ACC and AFSOC. The Air Force, ACC, and AFSOC will continue to be viewed by the other services as more concerned about buying the latest greatest toy instead of doing what needs to be done to support the dudes getting shot at on the ground. You are correct and I agree with you...just want to say again it doesn't matter who owns light-attack so long as we get some in my book. I'm also not a General so my book doesn't mean sh*t.
tac airlifter Posted July 25, 2009 Posted July 25, 2009 Hey bro, AFSOC needs to get out of this "we are better than you" mentality. Everyone cries foul when they see the Raptor procurement and O&M costs, but riddle me this. How much does a new U-Model Gunship cost? What does it cost to maintain one? Sure, we're not trying to buy 187 Gunships, but we've got to move past this "AFSOC is so much better than ACC" b@llsh@t! Do you think AFSOC leadership cares about a light strike platform when they want to buy the next generation gunship, the talon replacement, or to continue to get the CV-22 fielded. Every General has priorities and they don't normally match up with what the Captains think should be happening. The reason AFSOC won't be flying a Super T anytime soon is because of the Talon and Gunship mafias in AFSOC that are afraid some of the fighter jocks from ACC will make the switch and start taking away some of their glory. The boys on the ground were asking for FAC(A)s back in 2002, but AFSOC did not answer the call and won't. The recommendation to the SOCOM commander was that this is not a SOF specific platform or mission so there is no need to use SOCOM money for it. That's why the Navy had to ask the Air Force (ACC) to help them pay for it for the Navy SOF guys. Sarcasm: Isn't AFSOC the SOF air arm? Bottom line: no matter how much the Captains say we need this to be AFSOC owned, it won't be because of tribalism and parochialism on both sides of ACC and AFSOC. The Air Force, ACC, and AFSOC will continue to be viewed by the other services as more concerned about buying the latest greatest toy instead of doing what needs to be done to support the dudes getting shot at on the ground. People cry foul over the cost of the Raptor because there are cheaper things that would be more useful now that are not funded, and its easy to blame the funding void on the Raptor. Of course that is a foolsih postion to take. The real funding issue is our national leadership who want to attain certain military/political goals but are unwilling to pay for those goals. All this arguing between services and intra-service ultimalty is because we all want to do our part in protecting the nation but there isn't enough cash available to us. So this is the unfortunate political and fiscal reality we live in, where we argue amongst ourselves for the inadequet amount of money. Blame congress. I'm not against the Raptor at all, I don't know anything about air-to-air threats; but the guys who do say we need it. I trust their judgement. But I also feel a burning desire to help the 19 year old kid on a mountainside, and I think we should fund platforms that can accomplish this task now. And as previously stated, there is a finite amount of money available to us; consequently I think the priority should be supporting the Army now. I believe the fighter dudes who say we need more Raptors, but we also need to help the Army win our current war. I'm sorry we can't do both, but don't fault those who take my position as being short sided. I know we need to maintain air superiority 20 years from now, but I'm prioritizing the present over the future. Don't worry, my opinion doesn't mean shit anyway. I have't seen any "AFSOC is better than ACC" crap at all. The line guys don't give 2 shits about the who's balls hang lower argument, they just want to fly and fight. My backround is AMC so I have an aversion to beauracracy and maybe that same aversion is what you're picking up as an anti-ACC feeling. I don't know. I do know that AFSOC is the only place I've been where guys who want to hack the mish aren't actively discouraged by leadership. I don't care what MAJCOM buys a light fixed wing ground attack platform, I just think the Air Force should be ashamed that another service has found a way to provide a need for the warfighter from the air. Thats our sphere of responsibility, and the fact that someone else is coming into our house because we couldn't get our shit together and do it ourselves is shameful. If we start by agreeing on that point, then I'll concede the aircraft to any MAJCOM that will operate them effectively. But as a service we have to get in the game man, and it just looks like AFSOC has been more willing to do that than other MAJCOMs.
I don't exist Posted July 25, 2009 Posted July 25, 2009 Trust me, there is no AFSOC FAC(A). There are plenty of platforms acting as TAC(A), but no one in AFSOC has the FAC(A) qual. Maybe I didn't understand where you were coming from. Let me give my perspective. I believe this should be a SOF owned gig for several reasons: 1. The snake eaters want a SOF owned light CAS platform that will fly day or night. That's the point of this thread. 2. We should be building the future combat aviation advisors in-house. We can't teach other countries how to do forward-firing CAS (drop bombs) because AFSOC doesn't currently do that. Right now, we have to beg ACC to let some of its CAS qualified instructors join AFSOC. Communities don't normally let their instructors go. 3. We should be training SOF JTACS with SOF aircraft. Habitual training relationships are inherent to SOF.
Guest ski&fly fast Posted July 25, 2009 Posted July 25, 2009 If we're looking for something that can loiter over targets for a long period of time and do the CAS mission, then why wouldn't the focus be on advancing attack helicopters and what would really make the Tucano that much better than the Apache?
ClearedHot Posted July 26, 2009 Posted July 26, 2009 If we're looking for something that can loiter over targets for a long period of time and do the CAS mission, then why wouldn't the focus be on advancing attack helicopters and what would really make the Tucano that much better than the Apache? Two words...range and speed. Trust me, there is no AFSOC FAC(A). There are plenty of platforms acting as TAC(A), but no one in AFSOC has the FAC(A) qual. Maybe I didn't understand where you were coming from. Let me give my perspective. I believe this should be a SOF owned gig for several reasons: 1. The snake eaters want a SOF owned light CAS platform that will fly day or night. That's the point of this thread. 2. We should be building the future combat aviation advisors in-house. We can't teach other countries how to do forward-firing CAS (drop bombs) because AFSOC doesn't currently do that. Right now, we have to beg ACC to let some of its CAS qualified instructors join AFSOC. Communities don't normally let their instructors go. 3. We should be training SOF JTACS with SOF aircraft. Habitual training relationships are inherent to SOF. Been banging this drum for years...There may be another opportunity next August.
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now