AF Light Air Support Aircraft

[Ulysses]

5 minutes ago, Clark Griswold said:

This has probably been posted on this thread or the other ones that are on the subject of the LAAR:

https://warisboring.com/the-pentagon-has-two-choices-for-light-attack-planes-2e4306197b1e#.utts1rvlb

Well shit, this was no joke the first article to come up in my search and I ended up reading others instead, until just now. That just about answers all my questions vis-a-vis the Bronco. Suppose it's well and truly off the table now. I'm anxious to see what ends up getting picked, given the seemingly official go-ahead on the program (again) following announcements at the AWS this month.

[Clark Griswold]

27 minutes ago, Ulysses said:

Well shit, this was no joke the first article to come up in my search and I ended up reading others instead, until just now. That just about answers all my questions vis-a-vis the Bronco. Suppose it's well and truly off the table now. I'm anxious to see what ends up getting picked, given the seemingly official go-ahead on the program (again) following announcements at the AWS this month.

Not to be negative but they have to pick one, we've been on the cusp before and then the AF backed off and the LAAR languished, just getting enough oxygen to stay alive but not enough to get on its feet.

They're all good and let's face it, the mission is not super demanding from an airplane performance perspective and they all meet the original requirements for a USAF LAAR:  

The selected LAAR aircraft will have to meet several key requirements, including:

• Rough field operations. The RFI requires that the aircraft be capable of operating from semi-prepared runways such as grass or dirt surfaces.
• Defensive package. The aircraft will have to include several defensive measures, including a Missile Approach Warning System (MAWS), a Radar warning receiver (RWR), and chaff and flare dispensers.
• Armored cockpit and engine.
• Long loiter time. The aircraft must be able to fly 5 hour sorties (with 30 minute fuel reserves).
• Range. The aircraft must have a 900 nautical mile (1600 km) ferry range.
• Data link capability. The aircraft is required to have a line-of-sight data link (with beyond line-of-sight desired) capability of transmitting and receiving still and video images.
• Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance (ISR) capabilities. The aircraft will have to laser track and designate targets, as well as track targets using electro-optical and infrared video/still images.
• Weaponry. The LAAR aircraft will need at least 4 weapons stores capable of carrying a variety of weapons, including 500 lb bombs, 2.75-inch rockets, rail-launched missiles, and illumination flares. The aircraft will also be capable of aerial gunnery, either with an integrated or pylon mounted gun.

Desired traits (but not requirements) include:

• Infrared signature suppression for the engine(s).
• 30,000 ft (9000 m) operational ceiling.
• 6,000 ft (1800 m) takeoff and landing distance.
• Aerobatic capabilities capable of maneuvers such as the Immelmann turn, Cuban eight, and Split S.

https://www.fbo.gov/index?print_preview=1&s=opportunity&mode=form&id=b30065477e7b9159bb2687f2cc2a3667&tab=core&tabmode=list

My two cents, the Scorpion is worth the extra money both in acquisition and operations costs.

Edited March 26, 2017 by Clark Griswold
minor

[matmacwc]

Scorpion is still not going to happen.

[Clark Griswold]

17 minutes ago, matmacwc said:

Scorpion is still not going to happen.

I wish I had a an excellent counter argument to that but methinks you are probably right but one can hope even in vain.

If they pick one, the question now is will they follow thru with the original 100'ish plane purchase?  

McCain wanted 300 and even LAAR fanatic me thinks that is a bit of a tall order.  100-150 seems like the right number but last I checked the AF was short on pilots and even shorter on CSOs, just buying or even selecting one is only step 1 to acquiring a LAAR capability.  

Now if they really wanna go outside the container, program the MILPERS for about 5000 man-years of MPA with the purchase and start offering 3 year tours to ARC aircrew, MX & support to stand up the squadrons and detachments that will need to be ready to absorb and host this new MDS.  

Edited March 26, 2017 by Clark Griswold
minor

[nsplayr]

The RFI, IMHO, seems to favor the A-29.

It's my understanding that the Scorpion and A-29 will compete for sure, with the AT-6 a possibility. Since Textron owns both the AT-6 and the Scorpion it's kind of an interesting business decision on whether you put forward two entrants or just push the one you think has the best shot at winning. We'll get to find out shorty here in prep for the actual fly-off.

I've got a personal favorite based on working somewhat closely with one of the platforms, but truth be told all three would make fine LAAR aircraft and the AF should just shit or get off the pot here. 16 years too late is better than never I guess...

Edit to add:

TL;DR for below: rough field, forward-arming as a doctrine is stupid regardless of what airplane they pick

Sidetrack here, but can we all stop kidding ourselves that we need "rough field" operations, forward-arming/fueling, etc.? We have airbase access across the globe and the diplomatic clout to gain more if needed. I've never thought it was a great plan to land a bunch of $15-20 million+ airplanes on a gravel road in some hellscape to be met by forward loggies for a gas-and-go.

Who's protecting and supplying said loggies? Why did we haul the gas and bombs forward rather than just transiting the aircraft back further rear? Never understood that fever dream of a desired capability for one second, and I've participated in operations where that would have been useful...it all comes down to the risk of setting up the staging point and it never turns out to be worth it.

Even if the plane itself can take rough field ops (like the aircraft I flew on AD), once you start hanging million-dollar sensors off the bottom that kind of changes your calculus again on how many times you want to risk that rough field before you fling a rock right through the sensor glass and cause a Class A.

Like the F-35B lift fan, this is a desired capability that induces other negative design trade-offs for what I would consider at best fringe-use situations. Hell, I can make a better argument for jump-jets from USMC short boats than I can for "rough field" operations and forward arming somewhere other than an airbase. Great for your Mad Max-type dystopian futures, but not for how the US mil actually operates.

Edited March 26, 2017 by nsplayr

[ClearedHot]

10 hours ago, Clark Griswold said:

I quoted CH from the beginning of this thread as he has actually flown both and can speak best to this...

CH - have you had anymore participation on the LAAR project since this 2009 post?  

AT-8, A-29 or Scorpion Jet?  

Yes...

[Lawman]

The RFI, IMHO, seems to favor the A-29.
It's my understanding that the Scorpion and A-29 will compete for sure, with the AT-6 a possibility. Since Textron owns both the AT-6 and the Scorpion it's kind of an interesting business decision on whether you put forward two entrants or just push the one you think has the best shot at winning. We'll get to find out shorty here in prep for the actual fly-off.
I've got a personal favorite based on working somewhat closely with one of the platforms, but truth be told all three would make fine LAAR aircraft and the AF should just shit or get off the pot here. 16 years too late is better than never I guess...
Edit to add:
TL;DR for below: rough field, forward-arming as a doctrine is stupid regardless of what airplane they pick
Sidetrack here, but can we all stop kidding ourselves that we need "rough field" operations, forward-arming/fueling, etc.? We have airbase access across the globe and the diplomatic clout to gain more if needed. I've never thought it was a great plan to land a bunch of $15-20 million+ airplanes on a gravel road in some hellscape to be met by forward loggies for a gas-and-go.
Who's protecting and supplying said loggies? Why did we haul the gas and bombs forward rather than just transiting the aircraft back further rear? Never understood that fever dream of a desired capability for one second, and I've participated in operations where that would have been useful...it all comes down to the risk of setting up the staging point and it never turns out to be worth it.
Even if the plane itself can take rough field ops (like the aircraft I flew on AD), once you start hanging million-dollar sensors off the bottom that kind of changes your calculus again on how many times you want to risk that rough field before you fling a rock right through the sensor glass and cause a Class A.
Like the F-35B lift fan, this is a desired capability that induces other negative design trade-offs for what I would consider at best fringe-use situations. Hell, I can make a better argument for jump-jets from USMC short boats than I can for "rough field" operations and forward arming somewhere other than an airbase. Great for your Mad Max-type dystopian futures, but not for how the US mil actually operates.

Meanwhile... in the service that treats aviation like Hilux's....


I'm not discounting your points, but take a look at our forward UAS presence out there right now in the AOR. If we can land 10-15 million dollar sensor equipped drones on an airfield that had as little preparation made for it as just an earth mover and a couple sprays of Rhino Snot, you aren't going to win any favor with the supported commander (the ground force) by insisting you can't go to the same places.

I'm the first to admit the way the Army beats on its helicopters is a self inflicted injury, but to pretend that an aircraft meant to survive austere conditions is a bad idea is a bit much. Yes your example of forward to the point of "why are we doing this?" Is valid, but it's also the 1% of the time Flight Concepts "let's go get Bin Laden" kind of day. The other 99% would be take a look at the conditions at some of our "Not Erbil/Taji" airstrips out there and say we need to set up operations. Essentially the requirement shouldn't be that it can go mud bogging, but that it wouldn't need you to ever land a C-130/17 to support it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Clark Griswold]

11 hours ago, nsplayr said:

TL;DR for below: rough field, forward-arming as a doctrine is stupid regardless of what airplane they pick

 

50 minutes ago, Lawman said:

Meanwhile... in the service that treats aviation like Hilux's....

Essentially the requirement shouldn't be that it can go mud bogging, but that it wouldn't need you to ever land a C-130/17 to support it.

Agreed.  But some kind of improved FOD protection, deep RSC fording, etc.  or the capability to have that if called for might be wise.  Just how much is the rub. 

Follow on, AT-6 & A-29 operating on dirt, no luck with the Oracle of Google finding anything on the Scorpion operating on anything less than prepared.

 

2 hours ago, ClearedHot said:

Yes...

Understood.

Edited March 26, 2017 by Clark Griswold
oldies but goodies added

[Lawman]

Understood.

And I think a lot of that prevention that is a concern:

-Ground Security
-Log-pack
-FOD/airstrip MX
-Etc

But it could and would be more easily solved by combining the idea of forward basing with personnel that actually understand aviation operations. One of the biggest boons to the Army UAS community was in getting a lot of it out of the BCTs and attaching them to Aviation Brigades. At least fundamentally those people understand how to better keep and feed aircraft.

This in a way would be the today's version of some of the Raven/Birddog/FAC type little expeditionary strips we used in Vietnam. Where yes it says US Air Force on the side but you look and live more like the grunts you are there with. I'd venture you would see a very similar attitude of mutual support if you were at some of these forward locations in a "we are here to help but you gotta help us" type capacity vs playing the game of my toys are expensive and your mission is not worth the risk.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Clark Griswold]

3 minutes ago, Lawman said:

And I think a lot of that prevention that is a concern:

-Ground Security
-Log-pack
-FOD/airstrip MX
-Etc

But it could and would be more easily solved by combining the idea of forward basing with personnel that actually understand aviation operations. One of the biggest boons to the Army UAS community was in getting a lot of it out of the BCTs and attaching them to Aviation Brigades. At least fundamentally those people understand how to better keep and feed aircraft.

This in a way would be the today's version of some of the Raven/Birddog/FAC type little expeditionary strips we used in Vietnam. Where yes it says US Air Force on the side but you look and live more like the grunts you are there with. I'd venture you would see a very similar attitude of mutual support if you were at some of these forward locations in a "we are here to help but you gotta help us" type capacity vs playing the game of my toys are expensive and your mission is not worth the risk.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yes.  

This type of mission, Direct Support, is what's needed.  

Like the C-27Js in their short life being directly tied to the customer rather than going thru the filter of AMD, it is what is needed.  Giving the AF though an escape clause if they are truly tasked with the impossible/stupid could make this a reality.

[nsplayr]

Here's the current Invitation to Participate for the Capabilities Assessment. 

Relevant for discussion is the Notional Light Attack Requirements that make up Annex 1. Updated from what Clark posted from 2009 although not significantly different. 

Big misses IMHO are:

- Dual FMV sensors not required and  no mention of other INT sensor support. Dual sensor allows for single ship ops to fully support a DA or kinetic strike (i.e. target designation and CDE scans) and doing so about halves your operating costs compared to always needing a 2-ship

- 2.5 hours of mission endurance is weak sauce. Also not specified at what distance from base so that time is kind of meaningless. 2.5 overhead the field is way different than 2.5 after a 300nm transit

- 2x voice radios with no requirement for BLOS is super weak sauce. Potentially can't talk to the JOC, to the JTAC on fires and air cord at the same time

- No requirement for BLOS datalink isn't smart

- 80% FMC MX availability is kinda shit for an aircraft this simple carrying mission systems that are proven capable of much more reliability. I'm assuming all comers will great exceed this one  

- Rough field ops induces other design limitations for very little gain, see above for my rant on that

Just one man's opinion, but changes I would have made if I was King for a day.

Hope we pick something and field it quickly, and if it goes to the ARC I'd gladly volunteer to fly any of the likely competitors for a tour. 

Edited March 26, 2017 by nsplayr

[matmacwc]

7 hours ago, nsplayr said:

 

- 2x voice radios with no requirement for BLOS is super weak sauce. Potentially can't talk to the JOC, to the JTAC on fires and air cord at the same time

- No requirement for BLOS datalink isn't smart

- Rough field ops induces other design limitations for very little gain, see above for my rant on that

 

What, so mommy and daddy can have a say back at the AOC or CAOC?

[Bender]

JCIDS still should apply to a QRC, right? I've never read the law on it, but rushing too fast has to have plenty of examples at this point. C-27, C-17 SADL, MC-12W...some more successful than others, but just because you're cleared not to talk to anyone, doesn't mean it's a good idea to literally talk to ing no one!

I can end up in the stack without comm to the JTAC? Hmm...

I haven't read any of it, I'm just still so swimming in sadness after 4 years in DoD acquisition. We're broken.

Bendy


Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network Forums

[busdriver]

Dude, it's a notional requirements list.  The idea is to put something inexpensive in the air and use lessons learned to inform any actual buy that goes through.  If the experiment is expensive, it's a dead end.

[Sprkt69]

23 hours ago, nsplayr said:

The RFI, IMHO, seems to favor the A-29.

It's my understanding that the Scorpion and A-29 will compete for sure, with the AT-6 a possibility. Since Textron owns both the AT-6 and the Scorpion it's kind of an interesting business decision on whether you put forward two entrants or just push the one you think has the best shot at winning. We'll get to find out shorty here in prep for the actual fly-off.

I've got a personal favorite based on working somewhat closely with one of the platforms, but truth be told all three would make fine LAAR aircraft and the AF should just shit or get off the pot here. 16 years too late is better than never I guess...

Edit to add:

TL;DR for below: rough field, forward-arming as a doctrine is stupid regardless of what airplane they pick

Sidetrack here, but can we all stop kidding ourselves that we need "rough field" operations, forward-arming/fueling, etc.? We have airbase access across the globe and the diplomatic clout to gain more if needed. I've never thought it was a great plan to land a bunch of $15-20 million+ airplanes on a gravel road in some hellscape to be met by forward loggies for a gas-and-go.

Who's protecting and supplying said loggies? Why did we haul the gas and bombs forward rather than just transiting the aircraft back further rear? Never understood that fever dream of a desired capability for one second, and I've participated in operations where that would have been useful...it all comes down to the risk of setting up the staging point and it never turns out to be worth it.

Even if the plane itself can take rough field ops (like the aircraft I flew on AD), once you start hanging million-dollar sensors off the bottom that kind of changes your calculus again on how many times you want to risk that rough field before you fling a rock right through the sensor glass and cause a Class A.

Like the F-35B lift fan, this is a desired capability that induces other negative design trade-offs for what I would consider at best fringe-use situations. Hell, I can make a better argument for jump-jets from USMC short boats than I can for "rough field" operations and forward arming somewhere other than an airbase. Great for your Mad Max-type dystopian futures, but not for how the US mil actually operates.

You apparently need an ALO tour

[Sprkt69]

12 hours ago, Lawman said:

 

Meanwhile... in the service that treats aviation like Hilux's....


I'm not discounting your points, but take a look at our forward UAS presence out there right now in the AOR. If we can land 10-15 million dollar sensor equipped drones on an airfield that had as little preparation made for it as just an earth mover and a couple sprays of Rhino Snot, you aren't going to win any favor with the supported commander (the ground force) by insisting you can't go to the same places.

I'm the first to admit the way the Army beats on its helicopters is a self inflicted injury, but to pretend that an aircraft meant to survive austere conditions is a bad idea is a bit much. Yes your example of forward to the point of "why are we doing this?" Is valid, but it's also the 1% of the time Flight Concepts "let's go get Bin Laden" kind of day. The other 99% would be take a look at the conditions at some of our "Not Erbil/Taji" airstrips out there and say we need to set up operations. Essentially the requirement shouldn't be that it can go mud bogging, but that it wouldn't need you to ever land a C-130/17 to support it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

This^

[Clark Griswold]

9 hours ago, nsplayr said:

...weak sauce...

Agreed but as busdriver said it is a notional requirements list and the AF is scared to put a ring on it, instead of a no-shit fly off, we're having:

"Invitation to Patriciate (ITP) for the Capability Assessment of the Non-Developmental Light Attack Platforms in support of the Office of Strategic Development Planning and Experimentation (SDPE)... blah blah blah"

WTF?  

Grow some balls and make a choice, do you want a LAAR or not?  If so, then have a RFP / fly off and make a damn choice.

54 minutes ago, busdriver said:

If the experiment is expensive, it's a dead end.

Agreed, but all of them are a bargain IMO.  

How much more do we need to experiment?  15+ years of COIN / LIC is not enough for us to believe putting a 2 ship of15E/16/18s... at probably 40k+ an hour (factoring in tanker support) is nuts?

 

Edited March 27, 2017 by Clark Griswold
minor

[BashiChuni]

most important requirement that it should have:

 

some LOS VDL other than POS VORTEX

christ almighty that system sucks

[tac airlifter]

13 hours ago, BashiChuni said:

most important requirement that it should have:

 

some LOS VDL other than POS VORTEX

christ almighty that system sucks

Never had any issues with PACWIND......

[nsplayr]

16 hours ago, matmacwc said:

What, so mommy and daddy can have a say back at the AOC or CAOC?

You want BLOS comms and VDL so the FSO can clear you hot in places where no JTAC is on the ground. Absent executing true SCAR doctrine, it's how business is done.

15 hours ago, busdriver said:

Dude, it's a notional requirements list.  The idea is to put something inexpensive in the air and use lessons learned to inform any actual buy that goes through.  If the experiment is expensive, it's a dead end.

Fair enough. I guess I'm just ready to write the check so I wanna see a full requirements list that has all the stuff I think the platform will need to succeed.

 

[nsplayr]

14 hours ago, BashiChuni said:

most important requirement that it should have:

 

some LOS VDL other than POS VORTEX

christ almighty that system sucks

Vortex is a dumpster fire POS and I blame whoever at the NSA sunsetted the PACWIND crypto about 5 years too early. It's almost as if we just need a common, pilot-proof, on/off system that works 99% of the time out to 80nm...sounds real familiar...

I slammed my head against the wall so many times trying to integrate Vortex back in 2012 and working with it regularly today, 5 years later, it is still horrible. Apparently Vortex 2.0 will be "a lot better," but a pox on Comms West's house for the current box and I don't trust them at all because they also think Vortex 1.0 is just fine.

Edited March 27, 2017 by nsplayr

[ClearedHot]

41 minutes ago, nsplayr said:

You want BLOS comms and VDL so the FSO can clear you hot in places where no JTAC is on the ground. Absent executing true SCAR doctrine, it's how business is done.

Most of the rest of the world does not understand how developed the SOF fires machine has become...they still think in terms of the AOC or CAOC running the fight with 3 GO's, 10 O-6's and 50 O-4's working the same permissions that a single dude in the JSOAC can pass.  Sadly, BLOS and VDL have become pass fail, but they do act as an insurance policy in multiple ways.

17 hours ago, matmacwc said:

What, so mommy and daddy can have a say back at the AOC or CAOC?

Sorry bra, I don't talk to the CAOC unless I want to know why the tanker is late...AGAIN.

[Clark Griswold]

Good article from The National Interest on OA-X:

https://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/oa-x-the-us-air-force-ready-purchace-new-light-attack-19927?page=show

From the article:

“I think the latter point is too quickly dismissed by some critics of this initiative. The Air Force has a pilot shortfall that is projected to grow to over 700 in the next couple of years. Moreover, while the Air Force’s Combat Air Force has shrunk to 55 fighter squadrons and a handful of bomber squadrons, there are other critical positions that require pilots such as joint staffs, operational planning staffs, etc. The Air Force is going to produce more pilots, but they will need cockpits for them – and a light attack aircraft with a two-pilot cockpit and a cost per flying hour of $4-5,000 could be a cost-effective alternative.  Add to that the availability of several off-the-shelf (or nearly so) aircraft; this becomes an option the Congress could fund that would have a near-immediate impact on the Air Force’s readiness.  There is also the potential for foreign military sales to allies and partners.  So, this said, I think the initiative has a good chance of succeeding.”

The reiteration of the benefit of a lower cost per flight hour aircraft for more flying, more/better operationally focused training and frankly a return of a "golden apple" to entice aircrew to stay for a career has got to pierce the institutional inertia.

Good deal programs are not that expensive in the total scheme of the AF.

LAARs as an alpha tour for 11Fs and some cross flow opportunities for 11M/R/U/S/G

More/different models of aggressor aircraft for fighter wings would likely keep some 11Fs for the career, thinking MiG-21s or an aggressor model T-X

Companion trainer for RPA units, require only a very basic cert/qual for the customers at the supported units with a cadre of 11's as IPs

Just bar napkin math but those programs would like cost 1.5 billion in acquisition and around 200 million a year using likely high end per flight hour cost estimates.  Assuming that a fighter pilot at the end of their ADSC cost about 8 million in training to get to their level of qualification, proficiency and operational knowledge and assume about 4 million for a heavy pilot, if these programs retain only 15 fighter guys and 20 heavy, they pay for themselves every year just retaining that few pilots, you'll likely retain at least that many CSOs, yet another savings.  This is not even factoring in the cost savings by using something cheaper in ops/tng...

Just buy one LAAR AF... we'll worry about the other golden apples later

Edited March 30, 2017 by Clark Griswold
minor fix

[Sprkt69]

13 hours ago, Clark Griswold said:

Good article from The National Interest on OA-X:

https://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/oa-x-the-us-air-force-ready-purchace-new-light-attack-19927?page=show

From the article:

“I think the latter point is too quickly dismissed by some critics of this initiative. The Air Force has a pilot shortfall that is projected to grow to over 700 in the next couple of years. Moreover, while the Air Force’s Combat Air Force has shrunk to 55 fighter squadrons and a handful of bomber squadrons, there are other critical positions that require pilots such as joint staffs, operational planning staffs, etc. The Air Force is going to produce more pilots, but they will need cockpits for them – and a light attack aircraft with a two-pilot cockpit and a cost per flying hour of $4-5,000 could be a cost-effective alternative.  Add to that the availability of several off-the-shelf (or nearly so) aircraft; this becomes an option the Congress could fund that would have a near-immediate impact on the Air Force’s readiness.  There is also the potential for foreign military sales to allies and partners.  So, this said, I think the initiative has a good chance of succeeding.”

The reiteration of the benefit of a lower cost per flight hour aircraft for more flying, more/better operationally focused training and frankly a return of a "golden apple" to entice aircrew to stay for a career has got to pierce the institutional inertia.

Good deal programs are not that expensive in the total scheme of the AF.

LAARs as an alpha tour for 11Fs and some cross flow opportunities for 11M/R/U/S/G

More/different models of aggressor aircraft for fighter wings would likely keep some 11Fs for the career, thinking MiG-21s or an aggressor model T-X

Companion trainer for RPA units, require only a very basic cert/qual for the customers at the supported units with a cadre of 11's as IPs

Just bar napkin math but those programs would like cost 1.5 billion in acquisition and around 200 million a year using likely high end per flight hour cost estimates.  Assuming that a fighter pilot at the end of their ADSC cost about 8 million in training to get to their level of qualification, proficiency and operational knowledge and assume about 4 million for a heavy pilot, if these programs retain only 15 fighter guys and 20 heavy, they pay for themselves every year just retaining that few pilots, you'll likely retain at least that many CSOs, yet another savings.  This is not even factoring in the cost savings by using something cheaper in ops/tng...

Just buy one LAAR AF... we'll worry about the other golden apples later

>$8M for fighter pilots and >$4M for heavy pilots.

Dont see the LAAR as a good aggressor aircraft for the future 5th Gen CAF

[Clark Griswold]

>$8M for fighter pilots and >$4M for heavy pilots.
Dont see the LAAR as a good aggressor aircraft for the future 5th Gen CAF

Don't disagree that training cost could be higher and you're right LAAR would not be a good sparring partner for 5th gens - my sidebar comment on Golden Apples was for an expanded or established good deal program really one of several that could encourage retention and serve a valid operational or training requirement

An aggressor aircraft IMO could be a light fighter or LIFT jet - no turboprop or jet LAAR even could meet that requirement well


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk