AF Light Air Support Aircraft

[nsplayr]

It also depends on how you define the mission. I think Rainman is thinking of the "Light Attack" mission more in terms of an "A/OA-10-type mission with a little gun", in which case he's probably right. On the other hand, my comment is based on the mission as more of a FAC/observation/ISR surveilliance/training mission with some weapons delivery capability if required...more the Vietnam-like OV-10 + manned Reaper mission model, or a even weaponized MC-12W mission. In the latter scenario, having one's head stuck in a video screen from the MX-15 FMV ball for several hours as you track a single HVT through village streets or to see where he goes from compound to compound is not very practical for a single seat version. I think the term "Light Attack" is a term more suitably attached to the SOF mission concept that the Navy was working; if I was to describe the broader mission I heard discussed I think the term is not accurate.

Exactly. If we're talking "light attack" only, then by all means a single-seat aircraft designed for attack works great. See A-10 for reference. IMHO, we don't need smaller A-10s with this program, if you want more A-10s then get more A-10s.

BUT, if you want to track man-sized targets through complex environments for hours and hours, lase for other platforms or for yourself without needing a wingman, constantly push and share data with other platforms, talk on 6-9 radios, and also employ both guns and AGM/LGB/etc., it's very beneficial to have a second person.

Is it necessary as rainman asks, perhaps not, I'm sure the laws of physics will still allow the airplane to take off with only 1 pink body up front. But is there a better way to operate than the minimum absolutely necessary? When you add on a sh*t ton of other ISR-related tasks besides flying and releasing weapons, maybe there's a reason all these platforms were designed for 2 seats. If 1 seat could do that mission just as effectively, why were there no single-seat proposals?

Edited July 20, 2011 by nsplayr

[Guest]

Not the proper forum to discuss this fully.

Hence my one word response.

Not saying that, but there is merit to the argument that the mission the LAS would do is best supported by a two-seat platform.

Basis what?

Giving credence to this argument is the fact that all the entrants in the program were two-seat platforms.

No, they were not.

So you envision a situation where you would purposefully not take an in-house backseater who was purpose-trained for the platform? On a regular mission, not a mission where you're taking up the GFC or an ALO or something like that? Do tell why you would ever do that other than the one-off need for absolute maximum gas.

The first and easiest answer is manning. High intensity and high ops tempo combat operations strain resources immensely. We are not talking about flying around the flagpole here. These airplanes will be downrange and the smaller the footprint the better.

How many times does the mudhen fly a combat mission without the WSO? Maybe they do regularly and I'm suffering from low SA,

The aircraft is designed for and requires two crew members. You're comparing apples to oranges.

please inform me if there is precedent for two-seat platforms flying with just 1 pilot on a regular basis in combat.

Your wish is my command...

[Alpharatz]

Out guzzling with the neighbors last night...They barely know what the USAF is much less an F-35..SO no support there...I figure that my Congressman and Senator are at roughly the same level..They however are in a position to write checks..

F-35 Kaputski, I would bet on it

F-22 need quite a few

Drones Yike's ...drones Oh well, It's the wave of the future

What would be wrong with re-starting the A-10 line? Get all of the A-10 operators together, decide on changes etc. etc. I don't know enough about it...

USAFE Kaputski

A REQUEST....could we get a couple of generals to join forces and call a stop to dicking with boots..T-shirts...sleeves...patches...(more ranting) I mean, really........

[ClearedHot]

That’s your opinion dude. You make some decent points, but you’re fighting an uphill battle against dudes with lots of experience doing this mission. I can’t speak for other missions, but I consider a second dude in the back to be a hinderance in a CAS environment.

Not measuring Johnsons, but I would bet I have as much time doing CAS as most A-10 dudes and I disagree with your assessment. When you practice as a team and the team does exactly what you tell them, usually without you even asking, the results are glorious. Ultimately, we come from different cultures and I guess we will just have to agree to disagree.

I make the next statement from the notch and with the disclaimer that of all the pointy nose platforms I've worked with, the A-10's have been the best, phenomenal is their standard... AND I have seen horrendous mistakes by my platform. However, the single most egregious FUBAR I've ever seen in combat was an A-10 bro who was absolutely clueless and cost us an HVT. We planned an OP for three weeks and at kick-off with five gunships pushing to five separate teams, he was still trying to do a roll call and figure out who was going where on what freq. Dear god that mission still makes me sick to my stomach.

[nsplayr]

That’s your opinion dude. You make some decent points, but you’re fighting an uphill battle against dudes with lots of experience doing this mission.

Agreed, this is my opinion and it's based on my background. I'm not a single-seat dude and clearly you and Rainman have some highly valid experiences coming from the single-seat A-10 background. I hope none of us expects to change a lot of minds, but clearly this is up for debate.

I can’t speak for other missions, but I consider a second dude in the back to be a hinderance in a CAS environment.

Well if a single second dude in the back is a hindrance than the gunship must be a total sh*t show! ::sarcasm::

I know what you mean but clearly the -15E makes it work in a CAS environment with 2 dudes and the gunship makes it work with like 14. And although you and rainman deftly stomped on my challenge to provide examples of 2-seat platforms launching with just 1 dude, there is plenty of precedent for 2-seat being workable as well so your opinion that a second dude is a hindrance doesn't jive to me. A second dude in an A-10 might be a hindrance but history shows that both 1- and 2-seat platforms can succeed at CAS. Your opinions that a trunk monkey messes up your mojo is based on your background and to be expected but that doesn't really make it more valid.

Again…I urge you to stay in your lanes. Your assumption is that one pilot is the absolute minimum, while mine is that one pilot is the absolute maximum necessary.

I assure you this is within my lane, let's at least take each other at face value here.

I follow your logic about utilizing the back seat if one is there anyway, but the answer to your question is because the decision was made to adapt an existing airframe to suit a mission rather than create one from scratch.

So back in reality versus the philosophical 1- vs. 2-seat mentality argument, can we agree that either the AT-6 or Super-T should fly with a mission-oriented backseater or sometimes a GFC/JTAC/etc. since they were designed to do so?

[Guest]

When you practice as a team and the team does exactly what you tell them, usually without you even asking, the results are glorious.

No doubt about it. Same as a flight or strike package.

Ultimately, we come from different cultures and I guess we will just have to agree to disagree.

Very different cultures. Most A-10 guys do not know your world. You know theirs better than they know yours but there are still some pretty big gaps.

We're also talking about different capes and lims for different missions.

I can't separate ASC from CAS. I can't even imagine trying to clear someone hot during a TIC if I wasn't actually flying my own airplane. I also can't imagine flying in the back just working radios and sensors during a CSAR, for example.

I know I have been maxed out in both peacetime and in combat and I'm not proud of that. I'm not sure another person in my jet would've helped my SA or productivity on those occasions...I'm pretty sure it would've only made matters worse. Everyone has a bad day. The hope is that bad day doesn't kill someone but sometimes it does. Which sucks.

I did fly a crew aircraft for a few years. I loved the rescue mission and the aircraft but didn't care for the whole crew thing very much. I found it more common that the crew did not keep up vs the glorius result that is possible with a great crew, especially compared to what I saw as a single seat guy and having my flight keep up. I'm pretty sure I was both a shitty helo AC and Co-pilot because my squadron commander told me I belonged in a single seat airplane, not a chopper. That is my experience and I'm only mentioning it to admit/reveal part of the basis for my perspective.

However, the single most egregious FUBAR I've ever seen in combat was an A-10 bro who was absolutely clueless and cost us an HVT. We planned an OP for three weeks and at kick-off with five gunships pushing to five separate teams, he was still trying to do a roll call and figure out who was going where on what freq. Dear god that mission still makes me sick to my stomach.

C'mon dude, seriously? You're way better than that.

Some of us have seen even more combat than others and have many stories of watching people from every airframe fuck things up hard. Really fucking hard. Like they should've had their wings ripped off and then sent to fucking jail hard.

I don't have to tell you that you absolutely do not want to go there, even if other people do. This one time at band camp is not where we want this discussion to degrade, especially the guys who have a bigger picture perspective.

Back on track...I think it is possible for crew airplanes and single seat airplanes to do the same or similar missions well.

I also think there are things a crew airplane can do that a single seat airplane cannot...and vice versa.

BL: I'm just saying it is not a given that more is better.

[Guest]

So back in reality versus the philosophical 1- vs. 2-seat mentality argument, can we agree that either the AT-6 or Super-T should fly with a mission-oriented backseater or sometimes a GFC/JTAC/etc. since they were designed to do so?

They were? I thought they were designed to be training airplanes with a student and an instructor and we are converting them to do something else.

That's like saying the F-15B/D and F-16B/D were designed to have a two person crew like the F-111 and F-15E.

Am I missing something here?

I simply can't agree that we should require two people simply because there are two seats. You asked for examples of when this type of mission has been flown using two seat airplanes and only one pilot and were given two valid examples.

[nsplayr]

They were? I thought they were designed to be training airplanes with a student and an instructor and we are converting them to do something else.

That's like saying the F-15B/D and F-16B/D were designed to have a two person crew like the F-111 and F-15E.

Am I missing something here?

I simply can't agree that we should require two people simply because there are two seats. You asked for examples of when this type of mission has been flown using two seat airplanes and only one pilot and were given two valid examples.

It was my understanding that the Super T was purpose-built for combat and has always had 2 seats. To me, if there are two seats and a job for a second person to do, take 2 people. If you want 1 person to fly the plane, design it with 1 seat so you can have more gas/bombs/toys. I'm not arguing that 2 people are always better than 1, I'm arguing here that if you build for 2 people, take 2 people.

Anecdotal, for the mission and the proposed capes/equipment, I also believe more than 1 person helps but that's a secondary argument and I don't suspect we'll agree on.

[Guest]

It was my understanding that the Super T was purpose-built for combat and has always had 2 seats.

Oh, my bad. I thought there was an A and B model and the A model flew first.

A-29A - Single-seater for attack and armed reconnaissance (on interdiction tasks), attack and cover (on close air support tasks), able to intercept and destroy low performance aircraft.

A-29B - Twin-seater for the same tasks as the single seat version, also used in training and advanced aerial control (on monitoring tasks).

[ClearedHot]

C'mon dude, seriously? You're way better than that.

Some of us have seen even more combat than others and have many stories of watching people from every airframe fuck things up hard. Really fucking hard. Like they should've had their wings ripped off and then sent to fucking jail hard.

I don't have to tell you that you absolutely do not want to go there, even if other people do. This one time at band camp is not where we want this discussion to degrade, especially the guys who have a bigger picture perspective.

That sucks and I hate hearing shit like that. Each airframe has shortcomings and every pilot has made mistakes (myself included). The question is whether there's value added by having a dude in the back of a jet like that. In other words, do you think the dude in your story would have done better if he was flying an A-10B, or was it a question of him being a shitty pilot and/or fragged for something a Hog/Hog pilot has no business getting into?

I knew it would come off the wrong way...It was NOT meant as a slam against A-10 driver, brother Rainman knows how I feel about them, it was meant to say the worst situation I've ever seen personally was a single seat guy struggling...certainly not the norm. Yes I think in this case an A-10B would have helped and this was not out of the lane of a FAC (A) hog driver. I would like to say more, but won't...in the end it doesn't matter, we all believe what we believe, at least we are all on the same side. FWIW, I do believe the LAAR can accomplish its mission with only one pilot.

[FUEL]

FWIW, I do believe the LAAR can accomplish its mission with only one pilot.

And wouldn't that be necessary for a FID role, considering instructing has to happen too? Or am I off base and current rumblings are for it not to double with a training role?

[nsplayr]

Oh, my bad. I thought there was an A and B model and the A model flew first.

What I found beyond Wikipedia...

The FAB (Brazilian Air Force) wanted both a single-seat configuration, with the military designation of "A-29A", and a two-seater dual-control configuration, the "A-29B". The primary difference was that the single-seater was to have an additional fuel tank replacing the rear seat of the two-seater. The first prototype to be brought up to full spec was to single-seater configuration, with the second prototype brought up to two-seater configuration and performing its first flight on 22 October 1999.

Ah ha, so if you're gonna replace the second seat you should probably add something like extra fuel, not just have an freakin' empty seat.

Since you're extremely knowledgeable on this it seems, do the A models have all the same toys as the B models? The same interface/avionics? I'll still maintain that if you add the level of modern magic toys that is possible, you're better off with 2 brains to run all that crap. Thanks for the history edumacation on previous light attack platforms.

[Guest]

Since you're extremely knowledgeable on this it seems

Sweet. Degrade to this mode.

Did I say I was an expert on the Super T or any of the other airplanes? I responded to your statement with a 6.9 sec search of the google.

Here's the closest insight I have...a close friend of mine was part of the Imminent Fury test sorties. He does not believe we need two people. I trust him. That doesn't make me an expert but it does provide some background for my point of view.

BTW, stop talking about "magic" as if it is so fucking complicated that there's no way one person fly and manage the "magic." There are enough examples of how that was once true but is not true now to choke a horse. Face it, trons/cyborgs can do what self loading baggage used to do, from navigating to sensor operation to self defense measures to guiding weapons to you fucking name it.

[AEWingsMN]

What I found beyond Wikipedia...

Ah ha, so if you're gonna replace the second seat you should probably add something like extra fuel, not just have an freakin' empty seat.

So Navs are about as useful for intelligent thinking, decision making and SA as Jet A, copy.

[busdriver]

I imagine the second seat in this aircraft/mission would be useful not for the CAS portion, more for the ISR role and the option to attach extra equipment for specific missions.

FWIW Rainman I agree a backend that isn't doing what it should is an SA draining monster, however a good backend is magical. In the end, I don't think it's the mission that determines how many crew members are required, it's airframe design and limitations of technology and integration.

[TAMInated]

So Navs are about as useful for intelligent thinking, decision making and SA as Jet A, copy.

Couldn't have said it better myself! (Settle down navs, that was a joke.)

[Guest]

having one's head stuck in a video screen from the MX-15 FMV ball for several hours as you track a single HVT through village streets or to see where he goes from compound to compound is not very practical for a single seat version.

BUT, if you want to track man-sized targets through complex environments for hours and hours,

I would say the maximum number of people in the aircraft for that mission should be zero.

No manned airplane should be doing those things. If you want someone to be part of that build an RPV with a single seat for a nav or sensor operator or janitor and use pilots to kill shit with real airplanes.

Single seat, no pilot. Not a bad idea. Problem solved.

[isshinwhat]

...however a good backend is magical.

Yes it is...

Edited July 21, 2011 by isshinwhat

[Guest]

In the end, I don't think it's the mission that determines how many crew members are required, it's airframe design and limitations of technology and integration.

Word.

[TAMInated]

No manned airplane should be doing those things. If you want someone to be part of that build an RPV with a single seat for a nav or sensor operator or janitor and use pilots to kill shit with real airplanes.

Single seat, no pilot. Not a bad idea. Problem solved.

Shack. I hate drones more than everybody on this board put together. That said, they are very good at doing what they were built for: flying around in a circle and waiting for Haji to come out of his house and poop. You don't need pilots to sit there for 8 hours and watch a drawing of a pink airplane while punching themselves in the sack.

[nsplayr]

Sweet. Degrade to this mode.

Sarcasm detector set too high, false positive; recommend reset. I was being serious, you seem to know what you're talking about so I asked a legitimate question. Does the A model somehow integrate all the systems up front where the B model splits some things off to the backseat guy or does the B model add additional systems? It's the crux of the idea of 1- vs. 2-seat for this mission; does the 1-seat have all the toys the 2 seat does? If so, and the pilot can handle it, then you're correct that the second guy isn't needed. I don't know the super T or AT-6 enough to know this, maybe you do.

Here's the closest insight I have...a close friend of mine was part of the Imminent Fury test sorties. He does not believe we need two people. I trust him. That doesn't make me an expert but it does provide some background for my point of view.

This is what I'm talking about...you claim not to be an expert but then whip out very strong opinions based on facts I don't have. Convince me why a 2nd pilot or CSO should not be aboard beyond "it's an SA drain." You might be right and we're headed down the wrong path on the program, but I think the fact that we're only considering 2-seat options is telling. Aren't we exclusively looking at the A-29B rather than the apparently also available A-29A?

BTW, stop talking about "magic" as if it is so fucking complicated that there's no way one person fly and manage the "magic." There are enough examples of how that was once true but is not true now to choke a horse. Face it, trons/cyborgs can do what self loading baggage used to do, from navigating to sensor operation to self defense measures to guiding weapons to you fucking name it.

Sooo...you say you've been out of the game for a couple of years and thus may not be familiar with the latest and greatest sh*t you can strap to a jet, you want to have this discussion on an open forum, but want me to be more specific than to say that there's enough magic to helmetfire any human being? No thanks, that's my position and you can disagree.

I'm aware of what can replace a nav or EWO (and rightly should on many platforms) and I'm also very well aware of what kind of stuff is a huge attention drain and that pilots are glad to have someone else handle while they actually fly the jet and think about the big picture.

So Navs are about as useful for intelligent thinking, decision making and SA as Jet A, copy.

No, that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that if you really think the mission can be done with one person, design the plane to be single-seat and put more gas/bombs/systems on board. The benefits of taking up the occasional GFC/JTAC/foreign national backseater are outweighed by the extra gas and thus loiter time you could give the ground guys on a daily basis; it's not a good trade off for occasional use only IMHO. On the other hand, if there's a second seat, systems back there that a person can use, and you don't have the option of just taking more gas if you left him behind, then why would you leave him on the ground? That's what I'm saying. If hoss and rainman are correct that you only need 1 person for this mission, then the program is f*cked up in a serious way from the start since we're buying airplanes that appear to carry 2. Somehow I think the program managers don't agree with their point of view based on their decision to pursue a 2-seat platform.

I imagine the second seat in this aircraft/mission would be useful not for the CAS portion, more for the ISR role and the option to attach extra equipment for specific missions.

FWIW Rainman I agree a backend that isn't doing what it should is an SA draining monster, however a good backend is magical. In the end, I don't think it's the mission that determines how many crew members are required, it's airframe design and limitations of technology and integration.

Other than the unintentionally homo-sounding backend magic, yes, I totally agree and you've written more clearly than I have done in about 10 posts combined.

No manned airplane should be doing those things.

There are missions where a pred is not a good asset for what you're trying to accomplish. It's not a knock on pred guys, it's the limitations that the system and platforms impose on them that we haven't found a way to solve yet. Why did we build all those MC-12s if we could have just used RPAs the whole time? I have no doubt that RPAs will replace most of us eventually, but for now there are manned assets doing this sh*t for a reason.

[GreasySideUp]

1 pilot or 2 is the wrong argument. The question is the mission. For the current wars, the problem is that the Super T and AT6 are completely the wrong platform all together. They will still require a stack and other aircraft or ground forces to be on station prior to them getting there. It is also worth noting that although fighters are single pilot, it is very rare they work alone. Often times each airframe has split radios and split sensors and even then there is a good chance neither pilot is privy to all the information related to the task. The single seat pilot only gets that information which is passed up and then over. There is a much larger chunk of the overall picture that is missing but more importantly - how the picture was developed is not from any fighter currently flying today. This is fine. Having only a partial picture still allows the single seat pilot to be extremely effective in CAS, ground support, TICs and every other mission that fighters currently do, but the trick is not the finish but the find and fix. (Caveat - SAR and other missions, the Fighters provide the entire picture - not related to the supposed role of the light attack AC to support SOF)

The problem today is combining the capabilities of a multitude of assets that create the overall picture, and then be able to finish, into one aircraft. I cannot see how this can be done with the Super T or AT6. Either of those will be a cheap substitute for the A-10/F16 and be a fraction as good for the finish. As a single ship with forward firing 50 cals and the light ordinance it will carry, it will be of very little benefit after the first pass. It will still require other assets as well to build the picture. Likewise, there is a reason for project Liberty and manned ISR. The ideal special ops fighter pilot's airplane needs long loiter, 2 targeting pods (one for pilot one for WSO, designator and marker) a minimum of a 20mm (Preferably 23-25mm) turret mounted that can be shot from the wheel, slaved to a helmet and pod, 2x GBU54, hellfire and a Maverick. 2 Mavericks would be better. If the WSO is retrained you could probably get away with crew positions for 3 people. Most of the time 2 would suffice, but to be completely autonomous - find fix and finish - it is not possible at this time with current technology for a single pilot to accomplish. It is also not possible for 2 single seat airplanes to accomplish. Shooting from the wheel and running 2 pods from a single platform negates the need for any additional aircraft in all but very large scenarios.

The OV-10 with some new motors and a small increase in payload could be the solution. With some re-engineering you could probably fit all the avionics you would need and a 3rd crew seat in the back. Rainman posted a fantastic article around page 7 about the difference in thinking behind this aircraft and the imminent fury project. Hopefully they get it right. A compromise, or worse, a change in the requirements just to match what a platform can provide will be a complete waste of time, effort and money and still short change the bros on the ground we are supporting. The problem with the initial requirements (See the first post of this thread) is that they duplicate current fighters, only with much less firepower. AT6/Super T may be cheaper, but they really add nothing to the fight. More likely they even take some capability away. If you still need other aircraft in a stack, and 2 ship of light attack to provide support, what really did you gain? If the requirements change to what the ground forces really need, you really can accomplish more with less, better than we currently can with combined assets, all in a single platform.

Edited July 21, 2011 by GreasySideUp

[nsplayr]

Greasy,

Good post, but I think what you're talking about isn't what the program's goals are. Find, fix, finish in environments that would call for that doesn't require flares, an armored cockpit, or a gun. Since the program called for these things, I took it to be not the SOF dream aircraft, but the "ACC cheap replacement for fighters so we're not burning $69,000 per hour flying vipers to do NTISR in a no-threat airspace" platform. It accomplishes the dual goals of increasing manned cockpits and iron on the ramp as well as frees up high-end fighter platforms to actually focus on high-end missions.

What you're describing would be awesome though.

[FlyingBull]

Face it, trons/cyborgs can do what self loading baggage used to do, from navigating to sensor operation to self defense measures to guiding weapons to you fucking name it.

Then why are there plenty of planes rolling off the assembly lines right now and still being designed that have Nav/EWO/WSOs in them?

All the non-slick J-model Herks have CSO stations (Nav, EWO, and in the new Gunship FCO). Most have multiple.

Navy is still buying plenty of F-18F's and EA-18G's

RC-135s are the most rebuilt/upgraded planes in the inventory and they have both Navs and EWOs

Some countries are even ordering two seat F-16s (and no not for training), including the F-16I.

When Lockheed was designing a new 'regional bomber' based on the YF-23, it had a back seat

ect

There are some applications where a non-pilot crew member is a benefit. Some applications where they would not be. That's why there is a mixed fleet. Yes, some legacy 'back seater' positions can be replaced by automated systems the same way manned aircraft can be replaced by unmanned aircraft or in the case of some of the new UCAVs currently in testing, even the pilot on the ground can be removed from the system. Fuck, an F-18 landed itself on a freaking carrier earlier this month. But there are plenty of circumstances/missions where an unmanned asset is the wrong answer.

As for which application is better with one, two, or zero seats? Way out of my lane. But clearly there are missions/circumstances/applications where two, three, or fourteen is better than one and vice versa.

[AEWingsMN]

No, that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that if you really think the mission can be done with one person, design the plane to be single-seat and put more gas/bombs/systems on board. The benefits of taking up the occasional GFC/JTAC/foreign national backseater are outweighed by the extra gas and thus loiter time you could give the ground guys on a daily basis; it's not a good trade off for occasional use only IMHO. On the other hand, if there's a second seat, systems back there that a person can use, and you don't have the option of just taking more gas if you left him behind, then why would you leave him on the ground? That's what I'm saying. If hoss and rainman are correct that you only need 1 person for this mission, then the program is f*cked up in a serious way from the start since we're buying airplanes that appear to carry 2. Somehow I think the program managers don't agree with their point of view based on their decision to pursue a 2-seat platform.

turn the sarcasm detector back up again for a minute.... it was a joke.