AF Light Air Support Aircraft

[backseatdriver]

Hopefully one that's rigged to explode mid-flight

WTF???

[GovernmentMan]

Hopefully one that's rigged to explode mid-flight

This doesn't make sense, and there's no period at the end of it. Feels like there's a punch line that has not been delievered yet. Or we could make up our own...

"Hopefully one that's rigged to explode mid-flight...if the ICS ever hears the words Allahu Akbar."

"Hopefully one that's rigged to explode mid-flight...if TCAS is turned off and the ICS hears the words cancel IFR in Kuwaiti airspace."

Edited August 25, 2011 by GovernmentMan

[nunya]

Can't say I'm shocked. We'd get more use out of a light attack aircraft than we ever will get out of the -22 or-35, but the program will never see the light of day as long as Congress doesn't see the benefit.

https://www.avweb.com...tml?CMP=OTC-RSS

Edited October 16, 2011 by nunya

[Clayton Bigsby]

Okay, so are there "50-year-old OV-10 Broncos" actually available to be used like the article says? Ones that haven't been bought up by the CDF, the anti-narcotics spraying program, or the Phillippines/Colombia/Venezuela?

[IDALPHA]

There goes that idea:

https://www.kake.com/news/headlines/Suspects_Wanted_In_Salina_Dollar_General_Holdup_134139528.html?ref=528

[TrainerModel]

There goes that idea:

https://www.kake.com/...28.html?ref=528

Wonder if this is any indication that the Air Force is straight up losing interest in this whole light-attack platform thing.

[Guest one]

Did any of you read about this...

https://www.kansascity.com/2011/12/27/3340981/hawker-beechcraft-files-suit-over.html

Looks like only the A-29 Super Tucano is going up for the bid.

[tac airlifter]

Too bad, the AF is missing out. The USN is very excited about their upcoming OV-10's.

[Guest one]

I do not understand why the Air Force is working so hard to exclude Beechcraft from submitting a bid. You think they would want the AT-6 because of all the experience the Air Force has with the T-6.

[HiFlyer]

Okay, so are there "50-year-old OV-10 Broncos" actually available to be used like the article says? Ones that haven't been bought up by the CDF, the anti-narcotics spraying program, or the Phillippines/Colombia/Venezuela?

I think the main reason the "50 year old OV-10 Broncos" are becoming available is that they are old, are running into sustainability problems (lack of spare parts), and are structurally used up. Most of the current owners are trying to replace them.

[tac airlifter]

There are a huge # of spare parts for the OV-10D & this aircraft will have some awesome mod's.

[Prozac]

Wasn't there some talk of new build OV-10Xs recently? Part of the original light attack competition? Is the Navy planning on pulling Ds out of mothball?

[Guest one]

[HU&W]

I do not understand why the Air Force is working so hard to exclude Beechcraft from submitting a bid. You think they would want the AT-6 because of all the experience the Air Force has with the T-6.

Perhaps all that experience is exactly the reason they don't want to use it in combat.

[Guest CAVEMAN]

Perhaps all that experience is exactly the reason they don't want to use it in combat.

Yeap and besides the Beechcraft team was given ample time to get their requirements straight......they dicked this one up.

[HiFlyer]

There are a huge # of spare parts for the OV-10D & this aircraft will have some awesome mod's.

I stand corrected. I guess my info was based off the A-models.

[mjk5401]

Perhaps all that experience is exactly the reason they don't want to use it in combat.

Why / how would this be a bad thing? It's not like we would conduct initial operations w/ a AT6. It would be used more as civil patrol stateside. Rather than using F16s on CAPs for a POTUS fundraiser, put up a AT6. It costs a hell of a lot less to operate, not to mention, no need for an airborne tanker.

For ops internationally, it would be used only once air superiority took place anyway. Throw a pod on it w/ some other good shit and you're good to go. You eliminate gas guzzlers and the need for tankers!

The other option to the light attack airplane is, throw a couple of AGM114s on the MC12s. Do ISR and CAS at the same time.

[Guest one]

I am pretty sure he is saying that the Air Force knows what it is buying when it comes to the AT-6. Maybe all the experience with the T-6 led to them realizing it is not the aircraft they want.

ETA: I think the Air Force is trying to add the Griffin to the light attack aircraft....Or at least Raytheon is trying to add the griffin to the light attack aircraft.

Edited December 30, 2011 by one

[brabus]

Rather than using F16s on CAPs for a POTUS fundraiser, put up a AT6. It costs a hell of a lot less to operate, not to mention, no need for an airborne tanker.

Are you saying AT-6s could take on CONUS alert duties?

[SurelySerious]

Are you saying AT-6s could take on CONUS alert duties?

Should be pretty easy to do some radar intercepts with that big radar up front.

[mjk5401]

Are you saying AT-6s could take on CONUS alert duties?

Yes and No! They were seriously considering having 24hr CAPs over NYC and DC post 9/11.

Why spend millions on a CONUS CAP when you can spend a few thousand and get the same effect? 6.9 times out of 7, its dumb asses who forget to check the NOTAMs when the POTUS is in town and they end up flying through restricted areas. F16s haven't shoot down a Cessna 172 (or other LFW) yet and probably won't ever due to CIVCAS. Not to mention, 16s are to fast to get up close and personal. Its a $$$ issue.

There still would be Guard alert duties for quick response, but thats more cost effective than burning a shit ton of JP8.

[Guest]

They were seriously considering having 24hr CAPs over NYC and DC post 9/11.

Nope. Wrong.

Why spend millions on a CONUS CAP when you can spend a few thousand and get the same effect?

Nope. Not the same effect and it is not millions vs a couple thousand.

6.9 times out of 7, its dumb asses who forget to check the NOTAMs when the POTUS is in town and they end up flying through restricted areas. F16s haven't shoot down a Cessna 172 (or other LFW) yet and probably won't ever due to CIVCAS. Not to mention, 16s are to fast to get up close and personal. Its a $$$ issue.

Ugh

There still would be Guard alert duties for quick response, but thats more cost effective than burning a shit ton of JP8.

I know you're trying hard but it is clear you are over your head. You've had some pretty gentle hints that could not penetrate you SA shield. Stop digging.

[Danny Noonin]

They were seriously considering having 24hr CAPs over NYC and DC post 9/11.

We did have 24 hour CAPs over NYC and DC post 9/11. They didn't last long over NYC. They lasted for several months over DC.

Not to mention, 16s are to fast to get up close and personal.

What does speed have to do with getting "up close and personal" with another airplane? I've been close enough to Cessnas to see the pilot's eyes bulge out of their sockets when I pulled up next to him. Speed is important, but not for the killing part. It's important for intercepting that fucker as fast as possible. A couple fighters have to cover a lot of ground and going 250kts in a T-6 doesn't get the j-o-b done very well.

[HU&W]

I could just imagine a couple of T-6's trying to intercept a rogue airliner. "Alright guys, here he comes, we've got one shot at this. And there he goes. Hey center, can you radio to those terrorist hijackers to slow to 200 knots indicated so we can try to catch up?"

[/sarcasm]

[Fast_N_Low135]

Looks like the Super T won the competition,

https://www.bizjournals.com/jacksonville/news/2011/12/30/embraer-wins-contract-to-build.html