AF Light Air Support Aircraft

[BashiChuni]

Exactly. Just fucking buy something. Get it done FFS

[RegularJoe]

11 hours ago, Clark Griswold said:

Informal survey - which would you buy for the Big Blue?  AT-6B or A-29.  Unfortunately Scorpion is not an option nor any other design (L-159 ALCA, OV-10X, etc...) and it is one of those two (not that they are bad choices) but that is all there is.

AT-6B.  What lurks behind the curtain in A-29 production land is of no value to us either as war fighters or taxpayers

[YoungnDumb]

A-29,  combat proven.  It's legitimately ready to buy off the shelf.  While I like the AT-6 I just foresee more testing/wasting time/money.

[matmacwc]

AT-6, supply chain mostly already exists, makes the choice easy.

[MooseAg03]

Which one uses LOX? Buy that one.

[Clark Griswold]

12 hours ago, RegularJoe said:

   AT-6B.  What lurks behind the curtain in A-29 production land is of no value to us either as war fighters or taxpayers

Copy - did you fly the Super T or still do?  Asked as I took a closer look at your account image (Super T initial cadre)

Concur with AT-6B, avionics are more advanced (up to MIL STD 1760) and while built in .50 cals would be cool, I doubt they would be worth it vs. another platform that can employ the more advanced PGMs in the inventory.

Not sure if this link has been posted but it is a pretty good side by side comparison of Wolverine vs. Super T:

https://rhk111smilitaryandarmspage.wordpress.com/2014/01/17/the-a-29b-super-tucano-versus-the-at-6b-texan-ii/

I think the quoted price of AT-6B at 14 mil a copy is a bit low but it is cheaper than the Super T, better avionics, and some performance advantages.  

Plan to finally get this plane (about 14 years late but better than never...):

- Pick the AT-6B at the end of Phase II of LAE in August

- Plan on buying 175 for the AF and get the USN/USMC to buy 50-75.  Half AD, Half ARC, FTU is a joint venture at a Guard unit with political pull to get the Guard friendly elements of the MIC to help push the rope.

- Distribute the squadrons to retain some of the MQ-9 crew force by offering dual qual opportunities or homesteading, this would also be done in conjunction with an honest effort to improve QoL for RPA folks.  More & better base choices across several time zones.  11s & 18s could fly pilot / cso respectively and for enlisted sensors, make a CCAF degree and a commander's recommendation enough for an OTS program with a designated follow on and flying opportunity in the cso station.  

- Before we lose all good will towards us, get some of the Allies that join us on foreign adventures to buy a LAAR also, up to them on which.  But establish that when the West goes to fight long wars in the Arc of Instability, we are going to do it somewhat efficiently and not wear out the fast jets doing NTISR.

Just buy it AF....

Edited June 17, 2018 by Clark Griswold

[YoungnDumb]

33 minutes ago, Clark Griswold said:

- Pick the AT-6B at the end of Phase II of LAE in August 2050

FIFY, since we all know the AF won't actually make a decision/do anything worthwhile for at least 3 more years, and then even after that you gotta pork barrel the  hell out of it.

[ClearedHot]

10 hours ago, YoungnDumb said:

FIFY, since we all know the AF won't actually make a decision/do anything worthwhile for at least 3 more years, and then even after that you gotta pork barrel the  hell out of it.

We shall see, there is FINALLY some money in the NDAA.

[RegularJoe]

12 hours ago, Clark Griswold said:

Copy - did you fly the Super T or still do?  Asked as I took a closer look at your account image (Super T initial cadre)

 

Just buy it AF....

 

I was a senior exec for the prime, but eventually got tired of "Taco" stories about how great we were.

A-29 is a good aircraft as a whole but design for USA was not the same as the one build in SA for years therefore needs to be considered like any brand new design and it has some severe struggles that people on the end side probably don't know about..

Has four fuel pumps because known failure rate of these is 90%+

Has only one hyd pump which known failure rate is 65%+

Have to fly with two tanks to ensure any sort of reasonable range however when you fly with tanks the .50 casings bounce off the tanks and get stuck in the flaps damaging them once you move them.

Guns jam all the time due to design issues with empty shute

If you fly with a POD then centerline station is unusable

Hud is basically worthless as the PSU failure rate is 98%+

Fuel system wont transfer, single point fueling is problematic at best.

Gear handle switch down doesn't always equal gear down.

OBOGs is like trying to sucking air through a straw

 

It goes on and on, so as I said before AT-6B would be my choice based on Beechcraft's years of experience and working with a known design.  A-29 is really a new design that has never been tested before that is being directed by SA mgmt that has no experience or idea how to build a US Military aircraft.

[Clark Griswold]

1 hour ago, RegularJoe said:

I was a senior exec for the prime, but eventually got tired of "Taco" stories about how great we were.

A-29 is a good aircraft as a whole but design for USA was not the same as the one build in SA for years therefore needs to be considered like any brand new design and it has some severe struggles that people on the end side probably don't know about..

Has four fuel pumps because known failure rate of these is 90%+

Has only one hyd pump which known failure rate is 65%+

Have to fly with two tanks to ensure any sort of reasonable range however when you fly with tanks the .50 casings bounce off the tanks and get stuck in the flaps damaging them once you move them.

Guns jam all the time due to design issues with empty shute

If you fly with a POD then centerline station is unusable

Hud is basically worthless as the PSU failure rate is 98%+

Fuel system wont transfer, single point fueling is problematic at best.

Gear handle switch down doesn't always equal gear down.

OBOGs is like trying to sucking air through a straw

 

It goes on and on, so as I said before AT-6B would be my choice based on Beechcraft's years of experience and working with a known design.  A-29 is really a new design that has never been tested before that is being directed by SA mgmt that has no experience or idea how to build a US Military aircraft.

Copy all

Quite the list of deficiencies.

 

[di1630]

Can anyone give me rough estimate costs for some of the competitive designs? I’m working on a project.

[RegularJoe]

1 hour ago, Clark Griswold said:

Copy all

Quite the list of deficiencies.

 

Kind of like expecting this

 

Then getting to the dealership and getting this

 

[Clark Griswold]

Kind of like expecting this

 
Then getting to the dealership and getting this
 

I know that feeling all too well

You think you hate it now but wait till you fly it...

[Clark Griswold]

2 hours ago, di1630 said:

Can anyone give me rough estimate costs for some of the competitive designs? I’m working on a project.

From the article ref here the AT-6B is quoted at 14 million and A-29 at 21 million, seems a bit low for the AT-6B and the article is dated from 2014 with references, some are wiki so if you want to cite it I would follow it up but those numbers of the mid teens to low 20's seem reasonable for the turboprops.

Guessing at $1500 a flight hour with everything factored.

Scorpion is often quoted at 20 million a copy but I suspect with some more features that a customer would want (AR capability, Air to Air capable radar, defensive suite, etc...) that price would climb.  Just a WAG but 25 million a copy seems reasonable.

Guessing at $3000 a flight hour with everything factored.  But for a mission requiring no AR support for Vul time, it's still a bargain.

[Blue]

7 hours ago, RegularJoe said:

A-29 is a good aircraft as a whole but design for USA was not the same as the one build in SA for years therefore needs to be considered like any brand new design

A-29 is really a new design that has never been tested before that is being directed by SA mgmt that has no experience or idea how to build a US Military aircraft.

Damn.  Didn't realize that.

Always seemed like the A-29 was marketed as some "off-the-shelf" solution.  Didn't realize Sierra Nevada had changed the design so significantly. 

[YoungnDumb]

My question (forgive if stupid) is why did they drastically change the design?  If it was working just fine then why screw with it?

[FourFans]

7 hours ago, YoungnDumb said:

My question (forgive if stupid) is why did they drastically change the design?  If it was working just fine then why screw with it?

Clearly you haven't met the USAF acquisitions process.

Edited June 19, 2018 by FourFans130

[RegularJoe]

10 hours ago, YoungnDumb said:

My question (forgive if stupid) is why did they drastically change the design?  If it was working just fine then why screw with it?

I'm not going to get into capabilities on an open forum but I will answer your question and you can figure out the rest.

1. SA uses the original A-29 to fight drug dealers, cartels and wanna be terrorist, we intend to use it to fight people pissed off at us with means to seriously fire back.
2. USAF is not going to buy a 20 year old design without some gold plating on it to make everyone happy that it is spiffy and new
3. Last time we had a prop driven aircraft who's role primarily dropped bombs was a Skyraider.... come on now.

Edited June 19, 2018 by RegularJoe

[Standby]

3 hours ago, RegularJoe said:

Last time we had a prop driven aircraft who's role primarily dropped bombs was a Skyraider.... come on now.

We will just ignore the entire AC-130/KC-130 mission as well as the MQ-1 and MQ-9. 

[Blue]

3 hours ago, RegularJoe said:

I'm not going to get into capabilities on an open forum but I will answer your question and you can figure out the rest.

1. SA uses the original A-29 to fight drug dealers, cartels and wanna be terrorist, we intend to use it to fight people pissed off at us with means to seriously fire back.
2. USAF is not going to buy a 20 year old design without some gold plating on it to make everyone happy that it is spiffy and new
3. Last time we had a prop driven aircraft who's role primarily dropped bombs was a Skyraider.... come on now.

Sounds like Sierra Nevada took a proven design and bolted on a bunch of extra stuff (some needed, some not), with no thought to the challenges of integrating it all together into a working system.

Edited June 19, 2018 by Blue

[RegularJoe]

6 hours ago, Blue said:

Sounds like Sierra Nevada USAF took a proven design and bolted on a bunch of extra stuff (some needed, some not), with no thought to the challenges of integrating it all together into a working system.

Fixed for you. 

SNC simply provided what the customer listed as requirements. 

[YoungnDumb]

Follow up question, if we're planning to use this against people with means to shoot back in a serious way, doesn't that defeat the concept of the light attack?  In that case wouldn't we use something like a Strike or a Hawg?  I get that dudes in Afghanistan can shoot back, but I can't help imagining they're using much more than a drug dealer or wanna be terrorist from South America.  Reason I ask is that I thought this was being sold as a COIN and CAS aircraft for a low threat environment, not something that will head in day one of the war.

[matmacwc]

That’s about 69 “follow up” questions that would take a theory of war discussion to answer.

[Clark Griswold]

4 hours ago, YoungnDumb said:

Follow up question, if we're planning to use this against people with means to shoot back in a serious way, doesn't that defeat the concept of the light attack?  In that case wouldn't we use something like a Strike or a Hawg?  I get that dudes in Afghanistan can shoot back, but I can't help imagining they're using much more than a drug dealer or wanna be terrorist from South America.  Reason I ask is that I thought this was being sold as a COIN and CAS aircraft for a low threat environment, not something that will head in day one of the war.

No I don't think so (using LAAR / OA-X to prosecute targets with some ground to air threats in that AOR), just depends on the type of threats and the capability of the platform-sensor-weapons combo to mitigate those threats to deliver its desired effects.

Use modern capability to out-range the enemy, the platform out of the enemy's threat range and while putting him in your effective range all while delivering air power for less thru lower platform operating cost and lower operational support (AR) and logistical footprint, profit....

If you are reading this Big Blue, buy a LAAR:

- It's what you should be flying in permissive and in some parts of semi-permissive (Syria) AORs, depending on how you read tea leaves it is probably 6 to 15 times cheaper than conventional systems being used.

- It's acquisition cost is not that big a hurdle when you factor the fast payback rate due to much lower operational costs (direct operations and operational support), lower utilization on your 4th gen fleet to accomplish the same mission providing another operational saving and extended life of your 4th gen fleet to again save money in the out years of budget planning.  

- It will give you Pilot / CSO absorption & operational seasoning if you buy a nominal force, employ it and crew at a rate of 2.5 you have places to go for your new people.  Buy 150 and crew at 2.5, that's 375 pilot and CSO slots that your efforts at increased aircrew production can send newbies to until they go on to their follow F-69 / other aircraft, the training cost is low due to the efficiency of the platform, it will initially provide qualified wingman to deploy into the fight(s) and in this humble internet nobody's opinion changes the vector of the AF ever so slightly back towards Mission Focus.  Cycle dudes thru in 2-3 year assignments as the FTUs build additional capacity. 

- It will give you an option besides RPAs when logistical concerns may necessitate using a manned asset vs. unmanned.  Sometimes it is just simpler to send two trained aircrew in an aircraft to do a mission vs. everything required to execute RPA ops.  It is an affordable option to have in addition to RPAs not at the expense of the RPA mission.

- If you buy a robust LAAR / LAAR program vs. min running it, you have the possibility of additional missions (ACE program, threat replication, MOOTW platform, etc...).  Don't just get padlocked on solving one mission with this platform, think strategically, buy it to hack a mission and build morale / mission culture to retain valuable aircrew / airmen and potentially offer career options to increase operational capability not administration of the AF.

Preaching into the ether but might as well, just buy it AF...

Edited June 20, 2018 by Clark Griswold

[Lawman]

On 6/19/2018 at 4:17 PM, YoungnDumb said:

Follow up question, if we're planning to use this against people with means to shoot back in a serious way, doesn't that defeat the concept of the light attack?  In that case wouldn't we use something like a Strike or a Hawg?  I get that dudes in Afghanistan can shoot back, but I can't help imagining they're using much more than a drug dealer or wanna be terrorist from South America.  Reason I ask is that I thought this was being sold as a COIN and CAS aircraft for a low threat environment, not something that will head in day one of the war.

There are a host of systems that will provide both the standoff and survivability to keep a platform like this viable for the next 25-30 years. Until DE becomes so cheap and easy dudes in man dresses living in caves can do it, there is a lot of the world that with a small commitment of money we can put these aircraft without excess risk (CIRCM, CMWS, good sensors, APKWS, etc). We’ve got helicopters and FW slow-fat-kids-at-dodgeball game operating in airspace with an active Red Air Force. It’s possible because they know we have committed a small but lethal CAP and a willingness to use it and against the stuff threatening to the area we overcommit the willingness to kill it (watched the strikes F up a whole city block to get a ZPU that took a crack at us). 

Here’s and important thing with this light CAS thing though, that’s not gonna be and shouldn’t be its only role. You’re not just replacing Viper/Hawg/Dude, you’re providing a multifunction platform that can lessen the commitment of multiple platforms necessary for small scale operations typical of SOF. This has to be the aircraft that can be sitting in a recon role and do what a U-28/Predator does and then swing roles and start dropping hate in place of an Apache or Hornet against what some ODA teams or Route cleareance patrol needs when the call goes out. 

That saves the flying hours and cost off all those other platforms saturating airspace to spend 96% of their time waiting for valuable work. That’s the only way the cost of buying keeping and feeding an entire new MWS makes sense. Otherwise we ought to just spend the money on a few more of everything else because we haven’t really lowered the cost/stress in a valuable way. 

Edited June 21, 2018 by Lawman