AF Light Air Support Aircraft

[Kenny Powers]

Single seat doesn't mean you're out there working by yourself.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

[Sprkt69]

5 hours ago, tac airlifter said:

Why wouldn't you want a CSO?  Or have you only flown simple missions where a single human could handle the workload?

Maybe some pilots are good enough that they don't need the noise maker in the back seat taking up space for fuel and slowing them down. 

[tac airlifter]

20 minutes ago, Sprkt69 said:

Maybe some pilots are good enough that they don't need the noise maker in the back seat taking up space for fuel and slowing them down. 

More people can handle a more complex mission and more complex systems, as long as they don't suck.  All egotism and chest thumping aside, has anyone experienced otherwise?

[Kenny Powers]

More people can handle a more complex mission and more complex systems

So they all have to be in the same jet to do this?

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

[tac airlifter]

8 minutes ago, Kenny Powers said:

So they all have to be in the same jet to do this?

 

Of course not.  I get it dude, spent plenty of time working with 2-ships.  Never thought they were as good as multi-sensor platforms, at least for my mission set. So I guess that's the question: what exactly do we expect the mission set of this thing to be?  

[Danger41]

Nice thread derail going on here. A 4-ship doing OCA works as a single unit with their radar assignments and what not. Same concept as a crew airplane, just spread to 4, single seat jets. 

And if you think you're some higher level thinker because you're a single seat guy, ride along in a family model Viper doing CAS or something. All that chatter going on the aux isn't discussing why Dez Bryant is a dumpster fire for a fantasy football team this year. It's the same conversation going on amongst a crew on an ICS about how to accomplish the mission. 

On that note, ask the original Weasels back in Vietnam if they would've rather unloaded the "noise maker" in favor of more gas. And those gibs literally mean Extra Weight Onboard (EWO).

[Clark Griswold]

Two place cockpit is a must for most potential foreign sales and IMO a plus.  Not sure if they offer or have even designed a single seat variant, doubt it.  Other branches of the military and most foreign buyers want a second crew position, give the customer what they want.

On the single or dual seat argument with COIN aircraft, historically and currently, COIN aircraft had and have two seats as the workload from operational experience has demanded it.  It has been mentioned in these forums before and I will steal the thunder from another member that we sometimes confuse manned ISR with CAS, I'll extend that idea that this mission I call LASO (Light Attack Surveillance Observation) is not CAS, where fires are delivered more readily than in the LASO mission.  In the LASO mission because the fires are harder to deliver effectively, it lends itself to a multi crew platform.

The fires or effects are not likely to be delivered against a readily found/unambiguous target; they require time, effort and coordination to action them.  Two or more crew members managing sensor(s), multiple frequencies/playmates and potentially a long loiter over a target area with likely changing GFC priorities can do this efficiently and reliably, so can a single seat platform but usually only as a two-ship, so really it is not a one man job.

The US has previously operated COIN aircraft and they usually had two seats, the OV-10 & OV-1, both true COIN aircraft (low cost, technically simple, light kinetic capable, observation focused, etc..).  Almost all the other coin aircraft actually flown or dreamed up had two seats for the reason that fires in COIN / Irregular Warfare are not necessarily easily delivered and the operations tend to need two craniums, divvying  up the chaos, developing SA and then delivering whatever air to mud effects are needed.

[matmacwc]

It's an airplane without a mission, or at least looking for one.  My spidey senses say it should just go away before another dollar is spent on it.

 

[nsplayr]

2 minutes ago, matmacwc said:

It's an airplane without a mission, or at least looking for one.  My spidey senses say it should just go away before another dollar is spent on it.

 

If you had to guess, how much USG money do you think has been spent on this jet?

I'm surprised you think there's a lack of mission...even if this isn't the right solution, there's been a robust discussion both here and in more official circles about the need (or at least desire) for something that can do the ISR/light strike/armed reconnosiance/buzzword of the day mission more economically. The same mission many US aircraft are getting tasked toward today and have been tasked toward for close to 15 years now.

F-16, F-15E, F-18, B-1, B-52, A-10, AC-130, MQ-1, & MQ-9 among others have all done parts and pieces of the mission in question here, and scorpion or something a similar could do it cheaper per flight hour than most of them.

[Clark Griswold]

A bit dated but if we had listened to RAND in 2010 we would have a force for these marathon conflicts

https://www.dodbuzz.com/2010/04/05/af-needs-coin-plane-rand/

We need it to deliver air power without breaking the bank, develop our allies and steer them to airplanes they can afford and not fly the 4/5 gen fighters into the boneyard prematurely


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[HerkPerfMan]

On 12/24/2016 at 10:48 AM, Breckey said:

There's always the T-46

Reminds me of this new airframe from South Africa - the unfortunately named "Advanced High-Performance Reconnaissance Light Aircraft" (AHRLAC). And I think you only need a Light Sport certificate to fly it...

[guineapigfury]

40 minutes ago, HerkPerfMan said:

Reminds me of this new airframe from South Africa - the unfortunately named "Advanced High-Performance Reconnaissance Light Aircraft" (AHRLAC). And I think you only need a Light Sport certificate to fly it...

Does it come with a sweet Rebel Alliance flightsuit and helmet like the guy in the back is wearing?

[ATIS]

I really need some Caskmates while reading this.  Whoa...look at what just landed in the glass next to my computer. 

Please....continue.

Cheers (and Merry Christmas/Happy Holidays/whatever other holiday greeting is out there for masses).

ATIS

[HerkPerfMan]

2 hours ago, guineapigfury said:

Does it come with a sweet Rebel Alliance flightsuit and helmet like the guy in the back is wearing?

Yes, the Porkins Package is a factory option, but it cuts into the useful payload.

[ATIS]

2 hours ago, HerkPerfMan said:

Yes, the Porkins Package is a factory option, but it cuts into the useful payload.

Gentlemen...Please Please...

Stay on Target.

[ClearedHot]

On 12/25/2016 at 9:00 PM, nsplayr said:

If the mission systems were setup like a Viper or a Hawg, you could fly it by yourself.  But with dual-FMV sensors that lack some of the more automatic lasing tools present on true targeting pods, other INT systems, Vortex and other datalinks that aren't exactly "pilot proof," plus flying the jet itself, you need more than one person.

Not that one or the other is better (ok...I think more than 1 is better but then again I'm a nav...), but the systems have to be designed with the crew in mind.  You can't fly a gunship with a crew of 1, it just can't be done.  Same here based on how things are currently architected.  The mission systems could be designed for a single pilot, but I can tell you with absolute certainty that in this case they are not, and flying solo with more gas would inhibit you from performing the ISR/strike mission to the full capes of the systems.

In this mission set, two is defiantly better than one.  As nsplayer points out there is FAR more going on than managing a single sensor.

[tac airlifter]

54 minutes ago, ClearedHot said:

In this mission set, two is defiantly better than one.  As nsplayer points out there is FAR more going on than managing a single sensor.

Agreed, but apparently some folks here don't.  So why would you say two in one cockpit is more advantageous than two single pilot aircraft?  

[ClearedHot]

nsplayr did a good job of articulating the benefits...the key one being workload.

The second major advantage was a selling point for other versions of light attack and that was the ability to fly with a host nation aircrew member.  If you go back and read our doctrine it actually says we don't want to be in all these small fights, we want to build partner capacity to fight the small fights in their own back yard before the turn into something more serious that requires our participation.  The "reattack" on lite attack in the mid to late 2000's was based on the construct that we would fly the aircraft to country X, spend a period of time training them to fly and employ the aircraft, then our folks would fly home commercial and leave the aircraft for country X to fight with.

Another huge benefit not related to one or two seats is cost to operate.  The A-10, F-16/15E, B-1/52 and Gunships are all great airplanes but they are expensive to operate.  Scorpion and other versions offer 80% capability at 1/4 the cost.

[Seriously]

On 12/26/2016 at 0:48 PM, tac airlifter said:

More people can handle a more complex mission and more complex systems, as long as they don't suck.  All egotism and chest thumping aside, has anyone experienced otherwise?

If sensor fusion and some background automation/integration can take the place of a 2nd crew member, I would take that every day of the week over having 2 guys talking back and forth. Humans are an inherently weak link. Communication and decision making speed up tremendously when one person is processing the information. 

Edited January 1, 2017 by Seriously

[ClearedHot]

1 hour ago, Seriously said:

If sensor fusion and some background automation/integration can take the place of a 2nd crew member, I would take that every day of the week over having 2 guys talking back and forth. Humans are an inherently weak link. Communication and decision making speed up tremendously when one person is processing the information. 

Agree to disagree...having led a 13 person crew in combat, when it is working properly the crew construct can accomplish FAR more especially in a dynamic and often confusing situation.  On more than one occasion I've seen a non-verbals completely change an engagement.  I've also seen having another set of eyes and ears stop a potentially very bad situation from happening. 

[pawnman]

1 hour ago, Seriously said:

If sensor fusion and some background automation/integration can take the place of a 2nd crew member, I would take that every day of the week over having 2 guys talking back and forth. Humans are an inherently weak link. Communication and decision making speed up tremendously when one person is processing the information. 

Sometimes, it speeds it up too much.  The point is to make correct decisions, not just fast ones.

[Clark Griswold]

49 minutes ago, Seriously said:

If sensor fusion and some background automation/integration can take the place of a 2nd crew member, I would take that every day of the week over having 2 guys talking back and forth. Humans are an inherently weak link. Communication and decision making speed up tremendously when one person is processing the information. 

But speedy employment is not typically a problem in the typical mission of a LAAR, IMO.  The challenge first is to develop comprehensive SA: players (ground/air), effects called for, locations, frequencies, timeline (on station time, etc.)...

The JTAC / GFC could be calling for fires immediately but usually not in these missions, even arriving overhead with a TIC in progress, a single seat is not going in first thing guns blazing.

 

[Sprkt69]

4 hours ago, ClearedHot said:

Agree to disagree...having led a 13 person crew in combat, when it is working properly the crew construct can accomplish FAR more especially in a dynamic and often confusing situation.  On more than one occasion I've seen a non-verbals completely change an engagement.  I've also seen having another set of eyes and ears stop a potentially very bad situation from happening. 

And how often do things become unraveled when just one or more of your 13 crew members are well below average? 

[ATIS]

4 hours ago, ClearedHot said:

On more than one occasion I've seen a non-verbals completely change an engagement.  I've also seen having another set of eyes and ears stop a potentially very bad situation from happening. 

I can't agree with this comment more.  ~1900 hours flying the U28 from the day tail 419 showed up on the ramp as a CSO (my service component at the time didn't make a difference), the close quarters of the crew coupled with the limited capes we had (compared to the latest variant of the bird), internal verbal and non-verbal comms were a daily part of life and vastly improved our on station performance.  Myself and a good "nerd" were always in constant non-verbal comms when we were on the hunt.  Very effective. 

I've also seen and worked with multi-single seat players that could make stuff happen in our unique use cases  (both in my time flying Navy and in the Hurby unit).  The argument cuts both ways, there is no one answer. 

Cheers

ATIS

Edited January 1, 2017 by ATIS
Post NYE foggy typing skills in action

[ClearedHot]

16 minutes ago, Sprkt69 said:

And how often do things become unraveled when just one or more of your 13 crew members are well below average? 

Not very often as the collective takes up the slack...it truly depends on the crew position.  One bad gunner and you likely won't notice as the lead gun while "deal with it."   The real issue is having a bad Aircraft Commander or one who is a weak leader.   On numerous occasions I've seen that second set of eyes make the difference in a key engagement, case in point I remember one engagement when the crew was focused on shooting two assholes who fire at our folks and were attempting to flee...they were running in a series of ditches along a wall, the other sensor just happened to be scanning from a wider angle and noticed a much bigger group attempting to sneak up on our ground forces.   On another occasion we were finishing off a group that had just conducted an attack, I came of the HUD to reposition the aircraft due to high winds and noticed a vehicle hauling ass a good kilometer from the current fight and well outside the view of the sensors, we finished our engagement and went after the vehicle, turned out to be a big HVI.

I am not trying to say one community is better than the other, just from a workload perspective I think a crew has more options and brain bytes in very complex fight.