AF Light Air Support Aircraft

[Sprkt69]

7 hours ago, di1630 said:

Geezus, $20M for a single engine light attack plane. Didn't the A-10 cost about $16M in today's $??

Why don't we update the A-10 design with some efficient engines and spend a few bucks more per flight hour to get a capable attack aircraft.

We constantly improve A/A pointy nose fighter designs but act like we've never built an attack aircraft before.



Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network Forums

Good luck trying to purchase a new A-10 for $16M in this day and age. There is a reason why everything is way more expensive these days

[matmacwc]

8 minutes ago, Sprkt69 said:

Good luck trying to purchase a new A-10 for $16M in this day and age. There is a reason why everything is way more expensive these days

Because we have to pay for your globe trotting ways?

[matmacwc]

6 hours ago, Clark Griswold said:

Got to be light vs heavy attack - now how light is debatable Scorpion seems the right weight (cost & capabilities)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Here we go again.

[Clark Griswold]

Here we go again.

Likewise


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[SurelySerious]

Geezus, $20M for a single engine light attack plane. Didn't the A-10 cost about $16M in today's $??

 

Why don't we update the A-10 design with some efficient engines and spend a few bucks more per flight hour to get a capable attack aircraft.

 

We constantly improve A/A pointy nose fighter designs but act like we've never built an attack aircraft before.

 

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network Forums

 

 

Good luck trying to purchase a new A-10 for $16M in this day and age. There is a reason why everything is way more expensive these days

 

edit: nevermind #readingcomprehension

[matmacwc]

22 minutes ago, Clark Griswold said:

Likewise


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It isn't going to happen.

[Clark Griswold]

It isn't going to happen.

Probably so but fight the good fight / argue on BO.net



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Sprkt69]

1 hour ago, matmacwc said:

Because we have to pay for your globe trotting ways?

Yes

[BashiChuni]

"see...sense...STING!"

can i get a CSO to tell me how i can rotate this picture? it shows right side up on my computer but when i add it i get this.

Edited May 9, 2017 by BashiChuni

[BEEPBEEPIMINAJEEP]

Not a CSO, but this worked for me

 

[Sprkt69]

39 minutes ago, BashiChuni said:

"see...sense...STING!"

can i get a CSO to tell me how i can rotate this picture? it shows right side up on my computer but when i add it i get this.

What a waste of space and weight to put those ladders in. Might as well add a spiral staircase and chandelier 

[panchbarnes]

17 minutes ago, Sprkt69 said:

What a waste of space and weight to put those ladders in. Might as well add a spiral staircase and chandelier 

And no place for the golf clubs

[Clark Griswold]

20 minutes ago, panchbarnes said:

And no place for the golf clubs

What?  If the AF gets the Scorp, a luggage pod for the mission bay would happen.  Plenty of room.

[panchbarnes]

So it's a multi-role aircraft with modular payload containers.  This is how you market the MWS.

[HU&W]

I like the open architecture.  That said, what does this contribute to the COIN fight that the MQ-9 doesn't?  All weather capability?  At what cost, though, both in money and risk to aircrew?  I just don't see the juice being worth the squeeze.

[matmacwc]

There are benefits to this airplane, its just not what we need, or anyone needs.  It's an A-10 with less capability and under mounted engines, with 2 crew!  The cost will not outlay the benefits.

[MooseAg03]

Don't worry, the AF will buy 300. Except they'll demand it have a UARSI and 1,000 other features and it will wind up costing $30M+ a piece. Then they'll make it fly 14 hour missions with AR support to waste even more money. It's what they do best. I mean, these are the same people who think we can afford an actual flying hour program of any consequence with an eventual 1,700 F-35s at $40k per hour. They don't know how to do cheap.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ClearedHot]

I see someone was on the ramp at HRT yesterday with a broken camera? 

As for the UARSI discussion...nope, going the probe and drogue route with a performance envelope that will allow to refuel form HC/MC/KC-130 or a KC-10/135/46 with a basket.

[di1630]

I like the open architecture.  That said, what does this contribute to the COIN fight that the MQ-9 doesn't?  All weather capability?  At what cost, though, both in money and risk to aircrew?  I just don't see the juice being worth the squeeze.

I'm curious on this also. Why not just get some better things for the MQ-9? I can't figure out what we are gaining here for the cost.


Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network Forums

[nsplayr]

Dual sensor on a single platform, let alone dual sensor in a 2-ship, changes the game for strikes where CDE is a concern (i.e. a huge percentage of all operations). Cheaper than MQ-9 when factoring in all the link architecture. Helps with pilot retention issues vs hurting them (i.e. people would want to fly the light attack mission, not so many pilots are volunteering for RPA). Much faster response time from launch to target area (400+ kts vs 200 kts). As stated, all WX capability. Better LOS radio comms and better maneuverability = better CAS support when friendlies on the ground.

MQ-9 is great at what it does and is getting better every day with new tech and weapons, but I wouldn't think I'd have to advocate for the pros of a manned platform on BO.net!

[ClearedHot]

22 minutes ago, di1630 said:

I'm curious on this also. Why not just get some better things for the MQ-9? I can't figure out what we are gaining here for the cost.

I think there will always be a need for manned ISR period dot.  Also, there is a lot of juice in a 400 knot, dual sensor airframe that is can haul 9,000LBS to the fight.

[Clark Griswold]

There are benefits to this airplane, its just not what we need, or anyone needs.  It's an A-10 with less capability and under mounted engines, with 2 crew!  The cost will not outlay the benefits.

False comparison - an A-10 may be / is currently tasked with missions that Scorpion if it is acquired will do but there are no plans to use Scorpion for the BAI in a contested environment that an A-10 is by doctrine / strategy tasked to

 

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[di1630]

Is BAI becoming a standard term?




Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network Forums

[BashiChuni]

Nothing can replace a man in the loop ISR no matter how many times the JOC declares they have "global SA"

you cant replicate the ability to look out the window and apply on the scene common sense. 

[tac airlifter]

2 hours ago, nsplayr said:

a bunch of valid points

All good points, not to mention forward basing with the teams we support builds relationships which both enable ops that might not otherwise happen and improve the quality of deliberatly executed ops.  Manned ISR is an absolutely essential part of current and future operations.  Unmanned is huge value added, but these capabilities compliment rather than replace each other.

I know plenty of guys who have crossed between manned and unmanned ISR and they unanimously share these opinions.  Dual sensor manned ISR isn't going to be replaced by single sensor unmanned.

1 hour ago, BashiChuni said:

you cant replicate the ability to look out the window and apply on the scene common sense. 

Take binoculars and a VSLIM, check in w/ GFC as sensor 3, profit.