AF Light Air Support Aircraft

[Clark Griswold]

 

21 minutes ago, xcraftllc said:

 

 

No I mean the Wright Flyer

 

 

 

I see said the blind man.

 

 

 

A-29, just buy it AF.  Lowest risk, great capability, already flown by a number of AFs.  I'd prefer Scorpion but LAAR will have to cost pennies compared to the Golden Calf to get any money.

 

 

[matmacwc]

Why the love of the Scorpion........for reals?

[Lawman]

Why the love of the Scorpion........for reals?

There is a crazy amount of love fest fandom out there for an airplane that has literally done nothing to prove it's self besides some photo shoots and demo flights. There are literally a dozen small jet attack aircraft with actual blood on their records but nobody is talking about how great those would be for this job.

It's like it's going the way of the F-20/Arrow/Tomcat21 with a lot of preparation for an aviation the media circle jerk.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[matmacwc]

Yeah, I think some people on this board are friends with and/or invested in the company.  I've looked at its thrust/weight and cargo carry capacity, it isn't that great.  We got rid of AT-37's a long time ago.

[Clark Griswold]

2 hours ago, matmacwc said:

Why the love of the Scorpion........for reals?

The thing about the Scorpion that I think makes it worth the money (IMO) is that you bring to the ISR / Light Strike missions a range of performance and capabilities that is wide for the mission and compared to its competitors, a major improvement over platforms usually assigned to these missions, with a modest acceptable increase in cost.  

Ultimately that has to be point behind a "high end LAAR" - you get a wide range of capability and a large improvement to those capabilities for a modest increase in cost with a platform designed after an extensive period of COIN / LIC with those LL incorporated into it.

I like the A-29 and AT-6 but you are basically constrained by the design as it is now, not so with the Scorpion.  It has been designed to be modular and scalable.  Again it is the range of capabilities / possibilities with this design. 

Need dual sensors, no problem.  Open architecture, done.  Modular payload bay for stuff you didn't consider on initial design, got it.

About 40% faster than the turboprops, service ceiling 25% higher, endurance greater since you can keep the wings clean with the weapons capable payload bay, higher altitude on station orbits possible, slow loiter speed at 140 KIAS, etc, etc...

That is just my rant for why I think the Scorpion should be the LAAR, my primal scream is for the AF to just get a LAAR, any LAAR at this point.

2 hours ago, Lawman said:

There is a crazy amount of love fest fandom out there for an airplane that has literally done nothing to prove it's self besides some photo shoots and demo flights. There are literally a dozen small jet attack aircraft with actual blood on their records but nobody is talking about how great those would be for this job.

It's like it's going the way of the F-20/Arrow/Tomcat21 with a lot of preparation for an aviation the media circle jerk.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Legit critique of the frenzy for a non-mission proven aircraft but I think that is an apples to oranges comparison, the small light attack jets you are referring to were likely designed years ago and don't have what makes the Scorpion as a light attack jet unique and much more capable for this mission, endurance.

Which light attack jets are you referring to?  A-37, Strikemaster, Alpha Jet?  They are combat proven and effective but they lack the endurance of the Scorpion.  Not to be cheesy but it really is game changing when you can have a tactical jet on station for 3 to 5 hours with no AR required.

Edited May 7, 2017 by Clark Griswold
grammar fix

[Danny Noonin]

Same reason he loves the gripen.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Clark Griswold]

7 minutes ago, Danny Noonin said:

Same reason he loves the gripen.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Danger41]

The modularity of the Scorpion is huge. Everyone gets wrapped around the axle on weapons and stuff but the name of the game for this type of platform isn't just a bunch of weapons; It's the find/fix capability. 

I don't think it needs to be a jet for the light attack, but if the thing is just a mini A-10 with weak to no SIGINT capability, don't waste our time.

[LookieRookie]

For perspective a T-6 costs ~$4.6M let's say an AT-6 costs $8M. A scorpion costs $20M. The AT-6 flight hour is $1K compared to $3K on the Scorpion. Not to mention a "mature" T-6 parts line.

Essentially for every Scorpion produced 3 AT-6s could be bought and fielded. I don't see the Scorpion winning this.

I assume the SNC A-29 has similar costs and it's line is open/being offered to FMS and we have qualified A-29 USAF IPs.

[Clark Griswold]

1 hour ago, LookieRookie said:

For perspective a T-6 costs ~$4.6M let's say an AT-6 costs $8M. A scorpion costs $20M. The AT-6 flight hour is $1K compared to $3K on the Scorpion. Not to mention a "mature" T-6 parts line.

Essentially for every Scorpion produced 3 AT-6s could be bought and fielded. I don't see the Scorpion winning this.

I assume the SNC A-29 has similar costs and it's line is open/being offered to FMS and we have qualified A-29 USAF IPs.

Google is not coughing up an answer on AT-6B per tail cost but an A-29 is often quoted around $15 mil a copy so it is likely around that price.  I believe Lawman said once that 15 million is actually lower than what it really costs, could be advertised without the sensor or some other shenanigans.  

$20 million a copy for the Scorpion I suspect is lower what the actual fly away costs will be if it lands a launch customer but I would not think it to be north of $25 million when all is said and done and it will probably cost about $2500-$3000 per flight hour, still a bargain as it will not need a $15k per hour tanker (assuming -135) twice a mission to keep it on station.  That's where the real cha-ching is with a LAAR, lower mission support tail requirement.

Probably you could get more AT-6s or A-29s versus Scorpions but probably not that many more (assuming the same procurement budget for a LAAR regardless of type acquired) but overall the cost would be more (more MX, Logistical footprint, manpower, etc...) and we likely need around 100 to 125 to round out our capabilities with our other systems doing these mission currently, versus a 200+ sized fleet, just my two cents.

Edited May 7, 2017 by Clark Griswold
last point added

[ClearedHot]

14 hours ago, Clark Griswold said:

A-29, just buy it AF.  Lowest risk, great capability, already flown by a number of AFs.  I'd prefer Scorpion but LAAR will have to cost pennies compared to the Golden Calf to get any money.

God I hope not...

9 hours ago, LookieRookie said:

For perspective a T-6 costs ~$4.6M let's say an AT-6 costs $8M. A scorpion costs $20M. The AT-6 flight hour is $1K compared to $3K on the Scorpion. Not to mention a "mature" T-6 parts line.

Essentially for every Scorpion produced 3 AT-6s could be bought and fielded. I don't see the Scorpion winning this.

I assume the SNC A-29 has similar costs and it's line is open/being offered to FMS and we have qualified A-29 USAF IPs.

You could not be MORE wrong on your costs.  AT-6 and A-29 will come in around $20M per bird, Scorpion will be likely be slightly higher, but not by much.  AT-6 is NOT $1K per hour...in 2012 OSD was rating it at $1.6k per hour and that has most certainly increased by now.  Scorpion was actually rated at $2.2K per hour.

This should be a far different competition than LAAR, the name says "OA-X" and that name alone implies a lot more requirement and capability than LAAR.  While not an A-10 replacement, it is certainly being sold that way in the halls of Congress.  In my opinion AT-6 in on an island because it has the least capability and the least room to grow.  Yes it has a mature logistics backbone and an established depot, but this is a 300 aircraft program that is going to be in combat for 25-30 years and the AT-6 is out of room to grow.  A-29 has some room to grow and I apparently a group of ACC IPs who are trying to shape the competition in its favor, but the A-29 is NOT made in America and that is a BIG deal these days.  Aside from the fact that Trump signed a "Buy American" Executive Order last month, the Kansas delegation is STRONG and they are going to play on the "American jobs" theme because their huge plant in Wichita is now idle and they are about to lay off thousands of people if they don't get the OA-X contract.  Please tell me how it will play out if A-29 wins and we shut an American Plant to buy A-29 which is made in South America.  Yes I know final assembly is here, but go look at the manufacturing breakdown (all the heavy lifting and parts manufacturing is down south), add that to a logistics backbone that requires us to buy parts from Brazil for the next 30 years (you do realize the real money comes from sustainment...this would mean billions going to Brazil).

My $ is on Scorpion but it depends on how the assessment is conducted, the jet has a LOT of room to grow and has some game changing capabilities.  USAF did a study a few years back looking at LAAR and manned ISR and the number of aircraft required to provide the coverage offered by these aircraft.  SPEED and RANGE played a huge role in that study, not because USAF thinks jets are cool, but because of the time/space continuum.  The ability of an aircraft like Scorpion to go high and fast (400 knots in the 30's), to the AO actually reduced the number of aircraft required to provided constant coverage, it also reduced the number of bases required because you could stage from a greater distance.  Scorpion is going to have almost TWICE the range and the ability to get there in a little more than HALF the time.  In essence a two ship of Scorpions could easily replace a four ship of A-29 in both capability and coverage.  Combine those capabilities with American jobs and a Buy American directive and the jet has a strong chance to win.

 

[Clark Griswold]

1 hour ago, ClearedHot said:

This should be a far different competition than LAAR, the name says "OA-X" and that name alone implies a lot more requirement and capability than LAAR...

 My $ is on Scorpion but it depends on how the assessment is conducted, the jet has a LOT of room to grow and has some game changing capabilities.  

God, I hope you're right.

 

[Cooter]

12 hours ago, ClearedHot said:

God I hope not...

You could not be MORE wrong on your costs.  AT-6 and A-29 will come in around $20M per bird, Scorpion will be likely be slightly higher, but not by much.  AT-6 is NOT $1K per hour...in 2012 OSD was rating it at $1.6k per hour and that has most certainly increased by now.  Scorpion was actually rated at $2.2K per hour.

This should be a far different competition than LAAR, the name says "OA-X" and that name alone implies a lot more requirement and capability than LAAR.  While not an A-10 replacement, it is certainly being sold that way in the halls of Congress.  In my opinion AT-6 in on an island because it has the least capability and the least room to grow.  Yes it has a mature logistics backbone and an established depot, but this is a 300 aircraft program that is going to be in combat for 25-30 years and the AT-6 is out of room to grow.  A-29 has some room to grow and I apparently a group of ACC IPs who are trying to shape the competition in its favor, but the A-29 is NOT made in America and that is a BIG deal these days.  Aside from the fact that Trump signed a "Buy American" Executive Order last month, the Kansas delegation is STRONG and they are going to play on the "American jobs" theme because their huge plant in Wichita is now idle and they are about to lay off thousands of people if they don't get the OA-X contract.  Please tell me how it will play out if A-29 wins and we shut an American Plant to buy A-29 which is made in South America.  Yes I know final assembly is here, but go look at the manufacturing breakdown (all the heavy lifting and parts manufacturing is down south), add that to a logistics backbone that requires us to buy parts from Brazil for the next 30 years (you do realize the real money comes from sustainment...this would mean billions going to Brazil).

My $ is on Scorpion but it depends on how the assessment is conducted, the jet has a LOT of room to grow and has some game changing capabilities.  USAF did a study a few years back looking at LAAR and manned ISR and the number of aircraft required to provide the coverage offered by these aircraft.  SPEED and RANGE played a huge role in that study, not because USAF thinks jets are cool, but because of the time/space continuum.  The ability of an aircraft like Scorpion to go high and fast (400 knots in the 30's), to the AO actually reduced the number of aircraft required to provided constant coverage, it also reduced the number of bases required because you could stage from a greater distance.  Scorpion is going to have almost TWICE the range and the ability to get there in a little more than HALF the time.  In essence a two ship of Scorpions could easily replace a four ship of A-29 in both capability and coverage.  Combine those capabilities with American jobs and a Buy American directive and the jet has a strong chance to win.

 

SHACK!  We were on the cusp of going up to KS to get some backseat time as well. Two things that hindered it at the time (2014/15) was lack of data and human-machine interface. You can actually pack more into it than two people could realistically handle. The modular bay can (20x3x3 if I remember) hold weapons, sensors, fuel in a mix if need be. BLOS being what is and the potential opens even more doors, think dudes in a JOC controlling sensors, etc. plus the log chain exists, something like 80%+ parts commonality around the world. 

NOT my personal choice but it has a lot going for it. Multi-sensor/SIGINT/capably armed...F3EAD in one package.  Sells itself...in theory. 

Whatever the baseline package is add $10M+ for kit...EASILY. 

Regardless, somebody warm a seat for me...

cooter

[BashiChuni]

27 minutes ago, Cooter said:

think dudes in a JOC controlling sensors

ugh. gross.

[nsplayr]

21 minutes ago, BashiChuni said:

ugh. gross.

Expand your horizons a little bit brother.

Think about this: WAMI sensor that can cover a large city center on the ground with multiple individual streams that can all be independently controlled. It's like having a handful of MX-15-like sensors onboard, all in one turret. The aircrew controls a couple of streams plus a second targeting turret (20in or 25in class) for PID and lasing. Now off-board the rest of those WAMI streams BLOS so some nerd in the JOC with a laptop and an X-box controller can look wherever the screeners or the Boss wants.

That kind of setup is not only a game-changing capability for the aircrew in certain mission sets, but also would enable more aircrew independence, since the JOC can independently look at whatever they want rather than having to ask the aircrew to zoom in or pan left or whatever.

Honestly this capability isn't quite a fit for OA-X IMHO, much better for pod-mounting on an RPA, but you get the picture. And all of this technology exists right now, off the shelf, and works...I've done this personally, no BS.

On the main topic, I know CH and Cooter personally, they've BTDT on the types of missions OA-X will be tasked with. They absolutely speak the truth.

IMHO, A-29 is the way to go if you want a slightly cheaper, more rugged and proven platform where it's capabilities are mostly fleshed out. If you want to put .50 cal on a pickup you visually ID and then land on a dirt road, it's a great platform. Weaknesses are sensor fidelity, the human/machine interface in the cockpit, speed/ceiling/capacity compared to the competition, and future possibilities. And even though I don't personally care as much about this, the "Made in America" or lack thereof will be a factor.

On the other hand, if you want the ability to grow capabilities in the future (i.e. more sensors, weapons, "boxes," fuel, etc.) the Scorpion's modular bay is an incredible asset. And as CH spoke to directly, the additional range and speed of Scorpion can enable things the A-29 is simply not capable of due to physics. Basing in friendlier places yet still making it to the target area with plenty of loiter time, requiring fewer jets to service a target area due to faster transit time, etc. Costs begin to look different when you go from strictly, "How much is the unit flyaway cost?" to "How much will it cost to hit a target 300nm away from base X after 10 hours of coverage ahead of time waiting for a strike window?"

Overall I absolutely want the AF to buy one of these at the end of the day, but if I'm King, I'm choosing Scorpion no question so long as everything can be successfully integrated and works as promised. Really if I'm the King and I can do whatever I want, I'm buying both (or Scorpion and AT-6) for slightly different missions to take advantages of both of their strengths.

Edited May 8, 2017 by nsplayr

[BashiChuni]

Ok I'll concede that to you NS. 

However I still cringe thinking of the JOC becoming a sensor warden. 

[Danger41]

1 hour ago, BashiChuni said:

Ok I'll concede that to you NS. 

However I still cringe thinking of the JOC becoming a sensor warden. 

I wouldn't worry about that. The RPA community should have that market cornered, right?

[BashiChuni]

1 hour ago, Danger41 said:

I wouldn't worry about that. The RPA community should have that market cornered, right?

you're an evil BA WUG troll...

[magnetfreezer]

4 hours ago, nsplayr said:

 "How much will it cost to hit a target 300nm away from base X after 10 hours of coverage ahead of time waiting for a strike window?"

A lot more than 300 NM away + immediate target prosecution with flight lead control vs GO level meddling after 10 hours of ISR

[ClearedHot]

6 hours ago, BashiChuni said:

you're an evil BA WUG troll...

Only for seven more weeks.

[Stoker]

With regards to all the discussion about domestically built aircraft having an advantage... I know Embraer is a Brazilian company, but the A-29 is built in Jacksonville, at least for US contracts.

[di1630]

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

[Clark Griswold]

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

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

[ClearedHot]

4 hours ago, sforron said:

With regards to all the discussion about domestically built aircraft having an advantage... I know Embraer is a Brazilian company, but the A-29 is built in Jacksonville, at least for US contracts.

Try again...

The A-29 is "assembled" in Jacksonville with parts manufactured in Brazil and shipped to the Untied States. 

All follow on logistics will come from Brazil with parts licensed to and built in Brazil.

[Stoker]

55 minutes ago, ClearedHot said:

Try again...

The A-29 is "assembled" in Jacksonville with parts manufactured in Brazil and shipped to the Untied States. 

All follow on logistics will come from Brazil with parts licensed to and built in Brazil.

Fair enough, I meant to say that I wasn't sure what the percentage of domestically produced parts was.