AF Light Air Support Aircraft

[Clark Griswold]

Acquire by 2020?
Scorpion or F/A-259 then



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Danger41]

If that’s the case, I’d say goodbye to the FID mission portion.

[Clark Griswold]

If that’s the case, I’d say goodbye to the FID mission portion.

Really? No sarcasm intended.
Depending on the particular effects needed by a HN I think either of those platforms could support a FID mission set.
Particularly the Scorpion (another shameless plug) with its endurance, sensor flexibility, open architecture and as it is derived from mostly commercially available systems it seems a low risk solution to offer to allies for either potential compromise of technology or giving them too much capability if we are unsure they will not apply kinetics proportional to the threat/provocation/attack.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Danger41]

Look at the list of Tank’s Gucci and non-Gucci locations for FID on the previous page. I can’t imagine too many of them are interested in jets (regardless of fantastic capability) for their own CT fights.

[Clark Griswold]

18 minutes ago, Danger41 said:

Look at the list of Tank’s Gucci and non-Gucci locations for FID on the previous page. I can’t imagine too many of them are interested in jets (regardless of fantastic capability) for their own CT fights.

Valid.

I envisioned partners like India, Columbia, Brazil, etc... with that comment.  

Capable of affording higher-end systems but still needing something affordable to buy/operate to go out and mow the grass.

[DirkDiggler]

https://www.airforcemag.com/Features/Pages/2019/January 2019/Donovan-No-Buy-of-Light-Attack-Yet-More-Experiments-More-Types-to-Consider.aspx

I’ve stated it before in this thread; the AF does not give a fuck about this program and does not value it highly when viewed alongside acquisitions like B-21, KC-46, F-35, next gen ICBM, 6th gen Air dominance, KC-Z, new advanced trainer etc.  SOCOM/AFSOC will not pursue acquisition of this by themselves; AFSOC is prioritizing-130J, more CV-22s, and next gen ISR.  Anyone who spontaneously ejaculated in excitement about the possibility of a “jet type light attack”  reading my previous post missed the point, the AF is going to continue to drag it’s feet and make vague statements until this goes the way of the dodo.

[Clark Griswold]

I know but one can hope / post on BO forums

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[RegularJoe]

Key words right here....

 

Asked specifically if the Boeing T-X might be considered, he nodded and said, “It could.”

[YoungnDumb]

Can't even say I'm remotely surprised.

[fire4effect]

On ‎1‎/‎20‎/‎2019 at 9:03 AM, DirkDiggler said:

https://www.airforcemag.com/Features/Pages/2019/January 2019/Donovan-No-Buy-of-Light-Attack-Yet-More-Experiments-More-Types-to-Consider.aspx

I’ve stated it before in this thread; the AF does not give a about this program and does not value it highly when viewed alongside acquisitions like B-21, KC-46, F-35, next gen ICBM, 6th gen Air dominance, KC-Z, new advanced trainer etc.  SOCOM/AFSOC will not pursue acquisition of this by themselves; AFSOC is prioritizing-130J, more CV-22s, and next gen ISR.  Anyone who spontaneously ejaculated in excitement about the possibility of a “jet type light attack”  reading my previous post missed the point, the AF is going to continue to drag it’s feet and make vague statements until this goes the way of the dodo.

In deference to those more knowledgeable, I say let's not forget the LRSO either and its still under debate whether it will even get funded long term. However the ALCM is getting up there in years and certainly something that IMHO we can't do without some version. Yes LRSO supposed to be nuclear from the outset and I don't know how it will work with respect to current treaties or whether it will ever be given a conventional capability. There's also the re-engine of the B-52 in the works so it can make it long enough for the B-52 to be replaced. Just isn't enough cash to go around.

[HU&W]

I fully expect the light attack will be this.  But with a ball, and armed.

[pilot]

8 hours ago, HU&W said:

I fully expect the light attack will be this.  But with a ball, and armed.

I tend to agree...but kind of hope it’s this. But then again I really don’t know the possible LA capes for the TX. 

[Clark Griswold]

Why would you buy an LA platform with likely low persistence?

Even with a mod like CFTs you just end up with a small 4th gen still requiring a lot of AR support for vul times.

More survivable in that it could run away faster but compared to a clean sheet purpose built LA design it brings fewer capes with higher costs (dollars and req operational support)

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[ThreeHoler]

Why would you buy an LA platform with likely low persistence?
Even with a mod like CFTs you just end up with a small 4th gen still requiring a lot of AR support for vul times.
More survivable in that it could run away faster but compared to a clean sheet purpose built LA design it brings fewer capes with higher costs (dollars and req operational support)
 
 
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

Built by Boeing. The writing on the wall was visible when they ordered the T-X with AR capability.

[Clark Griswold]

Built by Boeing. The writing on the wall was visible when they ordered the T-X with AR capability.

Well it’s a good thing Boeing is not associated with shady insider acquisition shenanigans then.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[jazzdude]

Built by Boeing. The writing on the wall was visible when they ordered the T-X with AR capability.

AR was a T-X requirement, not an additional capability Boeing added.

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

[ThreeHoler]

AR was a T-X requirement, not an additional capability Boeing added.

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

I didn’t say Boeing added it. I said the writing was on the wall when the AF made it a T-X requirement. They were planning on using the T-X as a common platform from the get go is what I propose.

[fire4effect]

Interesting that this thread is pushing the 10 year mark in a few months. The answer may be buried somewhere in here but how important is the ability for an LAA to operate from unimproved fields? I see the current money says Boeing will be arming the new jet trainer. A few years back I also recall Boeing proposed the OV-10X as a Bronco on steroids as a LAA. I can see training is simplified going from a T-X to the armed version and I'm not at all saying we didn't NEED a T-38 replacement but how will it do on the same FOD ridden short runway? Sounds like it will need a fair amount of support infrastructure as some have alluded to. What do the military guys and gals on the ground and the taxpayer that keeps us all gainfully employed actually gain from an attack version of the T-X for the money (outside the congressional district where its built)? Consolation prize for losing out on the B-21? I just don't see it.

[Tank]

Future LAA...  the Bronco II

Boeing and Paramount

 

https://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/bronco-ii-light-attack-c4isr-aircraft/

 

https://www.paramountgroup.com/media-centre/news/bronco-ii-team-grows/

 

https://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/boeing-will-manage-the-supply-chain-the-bronco-ii-25714

 

 

 

 

[Clark Griswold]

2 hours ago, fire4effect said:

Interesting Depressing that this thread is pushing the 10 year mark in a few months and not one damn LAAR has been acquired. The answer may be buried somewhere in here but how important is the ability for an LAA to operate from unimproved fields? I see the current money says Boeing will be arming the new jet trainer. A few years back I also recall Boeing proposed the OV-10X as a Bronco on steroids as a LAA. I can see training is simplified going from a T-X to the armed version and I'm not at all saying we didn't NEED a T-38 replacement but how will it do on the same FOD ridden short runway? Sounds like it will need a fair amount of support infrastructure as some have alluded to. What do the military guys and gals on the ground and the taxpayer that keeps us all gainfully employed actually gain from an attack version of the T-X for the money (outside the congressional district where its built)? Consolation prize for losing out on the B-21? I just don't see it.

My two cents, unimproved field capability is/would be nice but not necessary for a LAAR purchased in quantity for the USAF, SOCOM may have a need for it but for the USAF having a manned platform that can effectively provide light precision strike/ISR without much support required (logistically or operationally) it would not be a must have.

I doubt it would be that hard of a capability to have built or retrofitted to a jet, MiG-29 has had it for years with main intake doors and upper louvres for ground and takeoff/land operations without incident to my knowledge.

But there are other ways to prevent jets from FODing out that are tried and true: high engine mounting, gravel kits on the 737s (gravel deflectors on wheels, vortex dissipators on engine intakes) also have been used for years by Alaskan operators and some in Africa.

[Lawman]

2 hours ago, Clark Griswold said:

My two cents, unimproved field capability is/would be nice but not necessary for a LAAR purchased in quantity for the USAF, SOCOM may have a need for it but for the USAF having a manned platform that can effectively provide light precision strike/ISR without much support required (logistically or operationally) it would not be a must have.

I doubt it would be that hard of a capability to have built or retrofitted to a jet, MiG-29 has had it for years with main intake doors and upper louvres for ground and takeoff/land operations without incident to my knowledge.

But there are other ways to prevent jets from FODing out that are tried and true: high engine mounting, gravel kits on the 737s (gravel deflectors on wheels, vortex dissipators on engine intakes) also have been used for years by Alaskan operators and some in Africa.

High engine mounting etc won’t survive the requirement of something like “go to X Airbase.” We shouldn’t just stumble on to expeditionary capability, it should be designed in from the get go. We have had instances whereserious questions if C-130s could land on that field because to quote the airfield assessment guys, “sir, dirt would be safer than this asphalt.”

We should ackoledge that most of our allies have spent little/nothing in infrastructure and this aircraft should be held to the same kinds of expeditionary requirement as the 130s that will be hauling their logistics tail into country. 

Edited January 24, 2019 by Lawman

[nsplayr]

Or we could buy the scorpion that actually had the legs and loiter time to operate from better maintained airfields and still reach out and touch the bad guys (STS), but what the fuck to I know...let’s develop something clean sheet that will take 6-9 years to field, that’s wicked fast and maneuverable, but that also has no legs and requires tanker support to operate effectively. 🤦‍♂️

[Danger41]

1 hour ago, nsplayr said:

Or we could buy the scorpion that actually had the legs and loiter time to operate from better maintained airfields and still reach out and touch the bad guys (STS), but what the fuck to I know...let’s develop something clean sheet that will take 6-9 years to field, that’s wicked fast and maneuverable, but that also has no legs and requires tanker support to operate effectively. 🤦‍♂️

Now you’re getting it.

[Clark Griswold]

21 hours ago, Lawman said:

High engine mounting etc won’t survive the requirement of something like “go to X Airbase.” We shouldn’t just stumble on to expeditionary capability, it should be designed in from the get go. We have had instances whereserious questions if C-130s could land on that field because to quote the airfield assessment guys, “sir, dirt would be safer than this asphalt.”

We should ackoledge that most of our allies have spent little/nothing in infrastructure and this aircraft should be held to the same kinds of expeditionary requirement as the 130s that will be hauling their logistics tail into country. 

Legitimate point, if so then Scorpion is still above the competition as its sensor balls can be retracted (sts just to cover my bases) along with a high wing and relatively high jet engine intakes, add the gravel/mud guards on the wheels along with intake doors/louvres  and/or vortex dissipators and you probably could operate off dry, compact dirt without major issue.  

I doubt adding those systems/features would be that difficult.

Going beyond that level would be unnecessary IMHO. 

5 hours ago, nsplayr said:

Or we could buy the scorpion that actually had the legs and loiter time to operate from better maintained airfields and still reach out and touch the bad guys (STS), but what the fuck to I know...let’s develop something clean sheet that will take 6-9 years to field, that’s wicked fast and maneuverable, but that also has no legs and requires tanker support to operate effectively. 🤦‍♂️

Damn genius Gump.

450 NM from Sig to Benghazi, 280 NM Erbil to Raqqah, 520 NM PR to Caracas...  None of the turboprops offered have that range, right now with no AR capability Scorpion could effectively still operate over those areas from bases 250+ NM away.  

Buy a LAAR, don't go super cheap and have a platform you don't have to figure out work arounds to make it useful.

[FLEA]

On 12/5/2018 at 12:39 AM, BashiChuni said:

Haha!

im w tac

FLEA...thick

On 12/5/2018 at 2:58 PM, Cooter said:

Tac is not speaking from a position of ignorance, nor I, and I tend to agree with how he put it.  There are non-6 SOS advisors with a fraction of their training (a couple weeks at most) doing partnered missions almost everyday.  To say they are in harm's way is putting it mildly. As someone who was in the process of applying for the 6th, I will tell you my perception and reality were very different, which is why I did not go through with it.  Flying combat missions is my jam and that was not the place to do it. Not knocking the 6th, valuable asset in high-demand but not what I was expecting from Combat Aviation Advising. 

If you want fully partnered combat ops advisor positions, they are out there, you just have to look for them and be ready to sacrifice a year or more of your time. Rewarding and frustrating at the same time.  But hell of a lot better than spending time an effort to train and advise folks to only wave at them as they head off to get after it.

Cooter

er skin

 

Just curious, were the flight envelopes (airspeeds) similar for the Scorpion and the Turbo Props on the low end? I can definitely see a tactical advantage to being able to maintain and hold slower airspeeds for extended periods of time in that role. 

Edited January 25, 2019 by FLEA