AF Light Air Support Aircraft

[MooseAg03]

“That does not mean that indefinitely suspending the LAA procurement was a wise move, particularly given the Air Force’s desire to demonstrate that it can be a smart and agile consumer.”

Smart and agile are two words that I would never use to describe the Air Force. It took years to adjust the length of SOS, a decade and a half to acquire a new tanker, and now years of stringing along the light attack idea. What a lethargic mass of bureaucracy we work for.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Swizzle]

https://go.afa.org/e/285922/er-Aggressor-Light-Strike-aspx/4x39gf/487542834?h=GZSUrX7SY-Rq0dROig76ir2dc6ccJxfJRqaj7bUbQnQ

 

“Strictly Trainer” T-X Now a Candidate for Lead-in Fighter, Aggressor, Light Strike"

Edited March 4, 2019 by Swizzle

[nsplayr]

Lol, ya don’t say. I’m sure Sec. Shannahan is utterly shocked that the mighty Boeing T-X may suddenly be the perfect fit for many other roles beyond training now that the rest of the competition has been cleared away...

[BashiChuni]

“Integrity first, servi.....never mind”

[Clark Griswold]

If they had just put a f*ckin' afterburner on the Scorpion would that have made them happy and then we could have bought it?

 

[Danger41]

No, because a Textron executive isn’t a higher up in the government.

[Day Man]

1 hour ago, Danger41 said:

No, because a Textron executive isn’t a higher up in the government.

they do have a history of questionable decisions...

[Tank]

https://www.airforcemag.com/Features/Pages/2019/March 2019/Air-Force-to-Buy-Six-Light-Attack-Aircraft-for-Continuing-Experiments.aspx

 

3x AT-6 (Nellis)

3x A-29 (Hurlburt)

[BashiChuni]

what fucking experiments do we need to do? grow a fucking pair and make a decision (put your name/reputation by it...looking at you senior leaders)...and go fucking execute. god damn it.

 

smells like a saving of face for the AF IRT screwing over the contractors

Edited March 14, 2019 by BashiChuni

[Clark Griswold]

what ing experiments do we need to do?

2 - this mission has moved on from the original requirement from the conflict(s) circa early 2000s

 

“Experimenting” is pointless with these two types

 

Light attack development for the 20s and beyond should be to develop a manned/partially manned platform capable of delivering

- A2G fires focused on PGMs and a DE system capable of lethal anti personnel / disabling unarmored vehicles effects

- ISR with up to 2 organic sensors and/or the ability to carry an Agile Pod plus other mission pods. Provision for BLOS system if desired for an ISR primary mission and/or partially crewed.

- Low on mission support requirements either for logistics or operations. AR capable but enough range / endurance it is likely not needed, 2000nm ferry range, 500nm combat radius with 1.5 on station @ 10k with no external tanks and an SCL of 6 PGMs and 2 defensive missiles. Either self-cueing thru multiple organic sensors or high connectivity to net(s) and cued thru by on mission partners

- Self-defensive capable to low/moderate threat environments. Can defend and successfully egress from a pop up radar threat, if engaged by an air threat capable of defensive maneuver and a defensive missile shot. 5G turn, with SCL and 600+ knots dash speed

- Reasonable signature reduction and mitigation.

- Modest acquisition and low operating cost. $45 mil a tail with sensors and $4k an hour or less to fly.

- 2 crew but can be configured for 1 on board crew with additional fuel and 1 virtual crew via datalink

 

This is just my ranting but the AF used to be known for innovation, get back to our roots big blue

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Tank]

https://airforcemag.com/Features/Pages/2019/March 2019/OA-X-Projected-to-Cost-More-Than-1-Billion-Through-2024.aspx

 

”According to 2020 budget documents released Monday, the service plans to buy 24 aircraft over the next five years: four aircraft for $160 million in 2022, and 10 aircraft in both 2023 and 2024 for $400 million each year.”

[MooseAg03]

$40 million per tail? I sure hope any future larger buy yields significantly lower unit cost.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Clark Griswold]

Lots of maneuvering room there...

From the article:

Funding projections in the five-year outlook are subject to change as requirements evolve... 

LAA [light attack aircraft] squadrons will provide a deployable and sustainable multirole attack capability, capable of performing a diverse array of attack missions, including but not limited to close air support, armed reconnaissance, strike coordination and reconnaissance, airborne forward air control, and interdiction,” according to budget documents.

The new aircraft could also fly combat search-and-rescue, rescue escort, and maritime air support missions, the Air Force said.

LAA will provide a deployable, persistent attack capability that can be employed with low footprint and light logistical support requirements.

My grumbling two cents... I'm getting the feeling we are looking at Light Attack for the last wars not the ones likely in the future.

As we go into the next generation of long term warfare in failed states/ungoverned areas (hybrid warfare, grey zone conflicts, COIN/LIC, etc...) a manned light attack platform is part of the air mission but one more robust/capable than we currently envision.

Next Generation Light Attack (to me) is precision fires delivered with additional effects (ISR, EA, etc..) organically, capable of moderate mission endurance with little or no logistical mission support (DCA, AR or large ground footprint).

Consider a hypothetical mission in a hypothetical failed state called Venezuelastan, where the country's not in civil war but not in stability, military elements of it have split and some are receiving support from outside actors, governments and some direct military support in deployments of foreign military forces.  

We support one side(s) and there is sporadic fighting where we provide kinetic/non-kinetic support to our local partners and likewise for the other side(s) with their allies.  The foreign military forces are not targeting each other openly but could attack each other in about 6.9 seconds if things change.  

To provide that support with a manned platform and provide the level of effects we want to while keeping the risk at an acceptable level and keeping the costs sustainable, we won't need a platform that can't deliver enough effects and is incapable of defending itself thus incurring an unacceptable cost to enable it and defend it; all the current offerings of turboprop based light attack suffer from that.  We will need a platform that is not a liability in itself while on mission, one that doesn't normally need DCA or AR support and is cost-effective enough to fly repetitively in long, slow progressing operations.

That said just to be clear is not to discount a light attack platform for a SOCOM type mission (individual or coordinated one time strikes supporting SOF) but for a conventional type mission (major campaign or operation using combined or coalition forces over extended time), this is where a Next Gen Light Attack is needed IMHO.

Not to padlock on specific aircraft but something like a modernized/modified A-7, modified Gripen or enhanced Scorpion is what I would envision filling this role.

Good Strike Capability, Tactical ISR, Self-Defense Capable, Excellent Range/Endurance with other modern effects capabilities.  All that at a modest and sustainable price/footprint.  

If we are willing to pay $40 million a tail for light attack platform, I think we can/should get more capability.

[Chuck17]

Tons of maneuver room, but I don’t think this is going to end well. Delays, cutbacks, more delays, goldplate until its unaffordable — Tried and true Pentagon tactics. We missed the window to get this thing made.

The LAA might show up in AFSOC but that’ll be the extent. This thing is still on the books for one reason: John McCain. Big blue woulda killed it long ago if it coulda. It has nothing to do with mission, and everything to do with money and politics.

And cuts are coming — when we start moving money around to dry out and repair Offutt, and/or once the decision is made to “warm status” Tyndall - ala Homestead... even faster if we have to cut flying hours to pay for border wall construction.

All options are on the table at this point.

It’s going to be a bumpy year. Not sure LAA has much altitude or airspeed left.

Chuck

Edited March 20, 2019 by Chuck17
Sp

[pbar]

The Pentagon doesn't lack for money; what it lacks is the ability to prioritize between the must-have and the nice-to-have, which is in turn, exacerbated by Congressional meddling/vote-buying.  People are so emotionally wrapped up in the nice-to-haves (which is why I won't give any specifics here) that we can't even have the discussion. 

[Sprkt69]

9 hours ago, Clark Griswold said:

Lots of maneuvering room there...

From the article:

Funding projections in the five-year outlook are subject to change as requirements evolve... 

LAA [light attack aircraft] squadrons will provide a deployable and sustainable multirole attack capability, capable of performing a diverse array of attack missions, including but not limited to close air support, armed reconnaissance, strike coordination and reconnaissance, airborne forward air control, and interdiction,” according to budget documents.

The new aircraft could also fly combat search-and-rescue, rescue escort, and maritime air support missions, the Air Force said.

LAA will provide a deployable, persistent attack capability that can be employed with low footprint and light logistical support requirements.

My grumbling two cents... I'm getting the feeling we are looking at Light Attack for the last wars not the ones likely in the future.

As we go into the next generation of long term warfare in failed states/ungoverned areas (hybrid warfare, grey zone conflicts, COIN/LIC, etc...) a manned light attack platform is part of the air mission but one more robust/capable than we currently envision.

Next Generation Light Attack (to me) is precision fires delivered with additional effects (ISR, EA, etc..) organically, capable of moderate mission endurance with little or no logistical mission support (DCA, AR or large ground footprint).

Consider a hypothetical mission in a hypothetical failed state called Venezuelastan, where the country's not in civil war but not in stability, military elements of it have split and some are receiving support from outside actors, governments and some direct military support in deployments of foreign military forces.  

We support one side(s) and there is sporadic fighting where we provide kinetic/non-kinetic support to our local partners and likewise for the other side(s) with their allies.  The foreign military forces are not targeting each other openly but could attack each other in about 6.9 seconds if things change.  

To provide that support with a manned platform and provide the level of effects we want to while keeping the risk at an acceptable level and keeping the costs sustainable, we won't need a platform that can't deliver enough effects and is incapable of defending itself thus incurring an unacceptable cost to enable it and defend it; all the current offerings of turboprop based light attack suffer from that.  We will need a platform that is not a liability in itself while on mission, one that doesn't normally need DCA or AR support and is cost-effective enough to fly repetitively in long, slow progressing operations.

That said just to be clear is not to discount a light attack platform for a SOCOM type mission (individual or coordinated one time strikes supporting SOF) but for a conventional type mission (major campaign or operation using combined or coalition forces over extended time), this is where a Next Gen Light Attack is needed IMHO.

Not to padlock on specific aircraft but something like a modernized/modified A-7, modified Gripen or enhanced Scorpion is what I would envision filling this role.

Good Strike Capability, Tactical ISR, Self-Defense Capable, Excellent Range/Endurance with other modern effects capabilities.  All that at a modest and sustainable price/footprint.  

If we are willing to pay $40 million a tail for light attack platform, I think we can/should get more capability.

A-7, Gripen or Scorpion...thought you wanted something that would not require a large logistical footprint. Or did I miss something

[Skitzo]

Has the Air Force explained how an operational Navy pilot (whose experience appears to have been mostly in an FBW fighter) and a non-fighter AF WSO, came to be flying asymmetric weapons release tests in an ejection seat equipped aircraft with manual controls? And just how wise was all this when they collectively had only about 10 hours' experience in the Super Tucano?
Are these questions people are asking, or able to answer?

I guess all I have to say is that they are following normal SIB/AIB processes.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Clark Griswold]

A-7, Gripen or Scorpion...thought you wanted something that would not require a large logistical footprint. Or did I miss something

Modern systems designed from the gear up for dispersed / expeditionary basing
Gripen is already designed this way but my hypothetical resurrected A-7 or Super Scorpion would need designing. Basing a new, modern A-7 on new proven systems and or civil aviation ones like the current iteration of Scorpion is might be one way to get to higher availability rates
There would be a logistical footprint just not an onerous one, shoot for a jet reliable enough that could deploy with 5 to 8 MX per tail


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[busdriver]

This is starting to sound like A-10 2.0

[Sprkt69]

8 hours ago, Clark Griswold said:

Modern systems designed from the gear up for dispersed / expeditionary basing
Gripen is already designed this way but my hypothetical resurrected A-7 or Super Scorpion would need designing. Basing a new, modern A-7 on new proven systems and or civil aviation ones like the current iteration of Scorpion is might be one way to get to higher availability rates
There would be a logistical footprint just not an onerous one, shoot for a jet reliable enough that could deploy with 5 to 8 MX per tail


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Don’t forget the logistics associated with a relatively long, well kept, and paved runway required of those mentioned airframes.  Also the extra fuel, parts, and base defenders.

[Clark Griswold]

Copy but it would not need more basic logistics than any other MDS, just saying that the design would have baked into it a requirement for low MX/high availability ala the F-20 or Gripen.  

This would not be infinite or excessive (this required level of low maintenance or reliability) but would be high enough to give an operational advantage both in cost and ability to execute sorties reliably and repetitively with a low to modest MX cost.

[Clark Griswold]

How about both?

https://www.defensenews.com/2019/05/08/air-force-to-give-sierra-nevada-corp-a-sole-source-contract-for-light-attack-planes-but-textron-will-be-getting-an-award-too/

and

https://www.defensenews.com/opinion/commentary/2019/05/08/light-attack-aircraft-is-the-solution-to-the-us-air-forces-dwindling-fleet/?utm_source=clavis

Second article is penned by a retired GO fighter dude associated with a think tank, maybe the Borg Collective is thinking about this?

Get aggressive Big Blue... tell Congress you need to divest your oldest & brokest jets to pay for the new capes you want (or should want) to rapidly acquire.  

[IDALPHA]

1 hour ago, Clark Griswold said:

How about both?

https://www.defensenews.com/2019/05/08/air-force-to-give-sierra-nevada-corp-a-sole-source-contract-for-light-attack-planes-but-textron-will-be-getting-an-award-too/

and

https://www.defensenews.com/opinion/commentary/2019/05/08/light-attack-aircraft-is-the-solution-to-the-us-air-forces-dwindling-fleet/?utm_source=clavis

Second article is penned by a retired GO fighter dude associated with a think tank, maybe the Borg Collective is thinking about this?

Get aggressive Big Blue... tell Congress you need to divest your oldest & brokest jets to pay for the new capes you want (or should want) to rapidly acquire.  

All too little and far too late. 

[MooseAg03]

Meanwhile we’re using our most advanced 5th gen jet to hunt down the last remnants of ISIS.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Clark Griswold]

All too little and far too late. 

Probably - I don’t know if the AF is just doing Kabuki theater to keep Congress at bay and/or if they are worried about the USMC being interested in Light Attack and wanna keep some involvement in it in case it grows legs do they can control or influence it.

That’s a bit conspiratorial honestly but...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk