Jump to content

AF Light Air Support Aircraft

Fud

By Fud
in General Discussion

 Share

Recommended Posts

SFG Flight Lead

SFG

Posted
Posted

LAA is all about partnering with underdeveloped nations in the “real” long war... The majority of the world can’t afford our F-16s, even when we give them away. LAA fills that gap and makes us more friends faster. All the other talk is second-order stuff.

  • Replies 1.8k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

mcbush
mcbush

Honestly I don’t even know why you guys take the time to discuss this. We’re not any closer to fielding a new airframe than we were 10 years and 1400 posts ago. The Air Force will never make the

Danger41
Danger41

So I’ll doxx myself here to people that know me, but I was the demo pilot for this program. I got trained on all of the offerings and flew them with the exception of the Bronco due to their gear colla

BEEPBEEPIMINAJEEP
BEEPBEEPIMINAJEEP

Not a CSO, but this worked for me  

Posted Images

Tank Gray Beard

Tank

Posted
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, BashiChuni said:

Tank I disagree. The gunship guys running afsoc do not like or want light attack. Ac-130J with lasers is the savior. 

The AC mafia may not like or want Light Attack but the GO’s running AFSOC do.

AFSOC Light Attack mission set 1 is for Combat Aviation Advisor training, 2 is for AFSOC CAS, 3 is for AFSOC Advanced Advisors.  

Edited by Tank
DirkDiggler Gray Beard

DirkDiggler

Posted
Posted
42 minutes ago, Tank said:

The AC mafia may not like or want Light Attack but the GO’s running AFSOC do.

AFSOC Light Attack mission set 1 is for Combat Aviation Advisor training, 2 is for AFSOC CAS, 3 is for AFSOC Advanced Advisors.  

This is for the most part a true statement but it comes with a caveat.  AFSOC & SOCOM leadership have been very clear that while SOF wants this capability they will not get ahead of Big Blue.  SOCOM wants the AF to pay for the basic iron on the ramp and they will pay for the SOF peculiar equipment on the aircraft.  SOCOM will not pay for the program in its entirety so if the AF doesn’t buy the iron AFSOC isn’t getting anything.

Tank Gray Beard

Tank

Posted
Posted (edited)
4 minutes ago, DirkDiggler said:

This is for the most part a true statement but it comes with a caveat.  AFSOC & SOCOM leadership have been very clear that while SOF wants this capability they will not get ahead of Big Blue.  SOCOM wants the AF to pay for the basic iron on the ramp and they will pay for the SOF peculiar equipment on the aircraft.  SOCOM will not pay for the program in its entirety so if the AF doesn’t buy the iron AFSOC isn’t getting anything.

Also true...

There’s a capability gap that LA can fill in AFSOC. SOCOM & AFSOC leadership both know it.  

Hopefully Big Blue doesn’t f**k it up! 

Edited by Tank
Tank Gray Beard

Tank

Posted
Posted
10 minutes ago, BashiChuni said:

Knowing a deficiency exists does not equal wanting to fix it. 

Big blue has already fucked it up. We should have had this a decade ago. 

 

SOCOM wants to fix it, just not pay for it...

Lawman Gray Beard

Lawman

Posted
Posted
SOCOM wants to fix it, just not pay for it...


Well you guys kinda own that left over taste for F’ing away what was going to be a 99% SOCOM asset with Spartan.

The Army Sherpa/intra theatre transport replacement was going to spend most of its life moving stuff and people for SOCOM. Nobody has forgotten that bad deal on the green side.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
  • Upvote 2
SFG Flight Lead

SFG

Posted
Posted
5 hours ago, Tank said:

AFSOC Light Attack mission set 1 is for Combat Aviation Advisor training, 2 is for AFSOC CAS, 3 is for AFSOC Advanced Advisors.  

What’s the difference between CAA and Advanced Advisors?

viper154 Gray Beard

viper154

Posted
Posted

So we will buy 20, they will go to a single unit or something like the 6th SOS, they will fly them for 6.9 years, and much like the C-27/RC-26/MC-12 they will be transferred to OGA or boarder/coastal state ANG. They will fly them for 6-9 years until that unit gets MQ-9s, the LA will be mothballed and the AF can say they tried the LA experiment but it just wasn’t (fill in buzz word statement here). Another great opertunity pissed away. 

YoungnDumb Flight Lead

YoungnDumb

Posted
Posted

Guessing the AF will say something like "20 isn't worth the investment, and besides the F-35 will be able to do it cheaper and more effectively...or so the brochure says."

Hacker Gray Beard

Hacker

Posted
Posted
4 hours ago, BashiChuni said:

Big blue has already fucked it up. We should have had this a decade ago.

Or two or three decades....

1200px-Piper_PA48_Enforcer_USAF.jpg

  • Upvote 4
Tank Gray Beard

Tank

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, Klepto said:

What’s the difference between CAA and Advanced Advisors?

The authorities granted to the pilots in regards to flying in combat with the PN personnel and the amount of training they both receive.

CAAs receive more specialized training and can be granted the authority to fly combat sorties in the PN aircraft with their PN counterpart.

 

 

 

SFG Flight Lead

SFG

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Tank said:

The authorities granted to the pilots in regards to flying in combat with the PN personnel and the amount of training they both receive.

CAAs receive more specialized training and can be granted the authority to fly combat sorties in the PN aircraft with their PN counterpart.

Tracking CAAs. I’ve just never heard of Advanced Advisors in AFSOC. I’m familiar with Air Advisors on the conventional side. Can you say what units employ Advanced Advisors?

Tank Gray Beard

Tank

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, Klepto said:

Tracking CAAs. I’ve just never heard of Advanced Advisors in AFSOC. I’m familiar with Air Advisors on the conventional side. Can you say what units employ Advanced Advisors?

Currently no Advanced Advisors in AFSOC.  AETC has the 81FS.  

  • Thanks 1
FourFans Gray Beard

FourFans

Posted
Posted
9 hours ago, Hacker said:

Or two or three decades....

1200px-Piper_PA48_Enforcer_USAF.jpg

Why? Because that's hot.  How many prop strikes you think the FTU would log in a year?

BFM this Gray Beard

BFM this

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, FourFans130 said:

Why? Because that's hot.  How many prop strikes you think the FTU would log in a year?

None.

The first phase of training would be 15 dual and 20 solo hours in a Husky.

btw: the FTU is equipped with a fleet of Huskies...and the line for IPs is around the block.

 

 

 

...let me have my dreams dammit

  • Upvote 3
MooseAg03 Gray Beard

MooseAg03

Posted
Posted

The more I read about the A-37, the more I wonder why there aren’t more airplanes like it. The Scorpion is a good try, but it’s empty weight is almost that of an A-37 fully loaded.

By not using a turboprop, you have a convenient place for an internal gun and with the KC-46 we could go back to probe&drogue to easily add air refueling capability. With small FADEC turbofans from manufacturers like Williams, efficiency has to be much improved over the jets used in the A-37.

It makes me wish the AF hadn’t settled for the T-6 in the first place and had developed a Tweet replacement.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Hacker Gray Beard

Hacker

Posted
Posted

Guys that flew the A-37 that I've spoken to are quite honest that they felt very under-gunned and vulnerable in it.  Lots of power, very maneuverable, but not the steed they wanted to be riding when iron was in the air.

One I spoke to who had been both a Raven FAC and later flew the A-37 said he felt safer in the O-1!

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...