nsplayr Posted January 25, 2019 Posted January 25, 2019 (edited) 5 hours ago, FLEA said: 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. Yes, maneuvering speeds as low as 100kts depending on weight and what's hanging on the wings. https://scorpion.txtav.com/en/missions Without saying anything proprietary since it's all on their website, I flew in it and can verify that it is more than capable of slow, steady ISR & armed overwatch orbits just like the props, but then also significantly faster transits. The jet was so much more capable in both in terms of just raw aircraft capabilities as well as the mission systems, but Textron's inability to credibly say it can handle rough field operations (table stakes for the LAE) essentially TKO'd it from the "experiment" before it started. My biggest beef with LAE was that the requirements, IMHO, were written to very closely mirror one of the competitors without giving an honest big-picture look at A) what's actually required to carry out the light attack mission, and B) more innovative approaches. Another big plus in the scorpion column that was not even considered is that with dual-sensor, long legs, and much more effective human-machine interfaces compared to the competition, there's really no need to fly as a 2-ship (cue the heads exploding over in the fighter mafia). So rather than always needing 2x jets to accomplish 1x mission, you can effective service targets with just one and therefore either buy fewer and save money or operate in more AORs for the same cost. To be sure there were issues with the company and the program, but I think the AF suffered a pretty big swing-and-a-miss if they were actually trying to find the best product the market had to offer. Standard caveats that we should have bought something about 15 years ago and I'd happily take AT-6 or A-29 over the nothing we're going to end up with. Edited January 25, 2019 by nsplayr
Swizzle Posted January 25, 2019 Posted January 25, 2019 https://www.af.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/1738529/goldfein-gets-up-close-view-of-new-t-x-trainer/ ...."convinced Goldfein that the plane has the potential to deliver what future pilots and warfighters need."
matmacwc Posted January 25, 2019 Posted January 25, 2019 20 hours ago, nsplayr said: Or we could buy the scorpion.... Here we go again. 1
Clark Griswold Posted January 26, 2019 Posted January 26, 2019 8 hours ago, Swizzle said: https://www.af.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/1738529/goldfein-gets-up-close-view-of-new-t-x-trainer/ ...."convinced Goldfein that the plane has the potential to deliver what future pilots and warfighters need." Yup, future warfighters will need a CAS/ISR asset in the stack that has to yo-yo every 30 min.
fire4effect Posted January 26, 2019 Posted January 26, 2019 Enlightening debate. For my understatement of the day the devil is in the details. There are some really smart PHDs at GE/Boeing and other OEMs etc that do inlet design for aircraft and engines and if you get it wrong you really can impact stall margin. Looking at the Scorpion's inlet placement for example I can only imagine the penalty in weight, complexity and maintainability to design inlets to prevent FOD. As for the undercarriage I'm trying to picture the Scorpion with tundra tires. I admit the Scorpion appears to have some incredible capabilities just tied to a too large infrastructure/log train but with that still would be a great fit for some countries. I just recalled the fatal T-38 mishap at Sheppard in 2008 where they touched down in the overrun and gravel shelled an engine which contributed to the mishap. Granted not exactly the same but a stark reminder of what can happen. Going back to cost we can barely keep our legacy systems going with the current funding and that's the real issue. The fight usually ends up where you least expect it and are prepared to go. Certainly been my personal experience and we have to maintain an expeditionary capability IMHO. One final point in favor of prop platforms in the ability to reverse the prop(s) and stop in some pretty short distances.
Clark Griswold Posted January 26, 2019 Posted January 26, 2019 17 hours ago, fire4effect said: Enlightening debate. For my understatement of the day the devil is in the details. There are some really smart PHDs at GE/Boeing and other OEMs etc that do inlet design for aircraft and engines and if you get it wrong you really can impact stall margin. Looking at the Scorpion's inlet placement for example I can only imagine the penalty in weight, complexity and maintainability to design inlets to prevent FOD. As for the undercarriage I'm trying to picture the Scorpion with tundra tires. I admit the Scorpion appears to have some incredible capabilities just tied to a too large infrastructure/log train but with that still would be a great fit for some countries. I just recalled the fatal T-38 mishap at Sheppard in 2008 where they touched down in the overrun and gravel shelled an engine which contributed to the mishap. Granted not exactly the same but a stark reminder of what can happen. Going back to cost we can barely keep our legacy systems going with the current funding and that's the real issue. The fight usually ends up where you least expect it and are prepared to go. Certainly been my personal experience and we have to maintain an expeditionary capability IMHO. One final point in favor of prop platforms in the ability to reverse the prop(s) and stop in some pretty short distances. Maybe but there are airfields everywhere and the need for expeditionary capability is debatable (possible though) for Scorpion or AT-X if the USAF follows thru with acquiring a jet based LA 2020 or beyond (not holding breath). I made a point earlier in this thread there can be an Our Light Attack and Their Light Attack, just like we had our multirole fighter (F-4) and their multi role fighter we sold to our allies (F-5) in the 60's/70s. One much cheaper to buy/operate/maintain. Methinks we should follow that previously successful model for LA. No doubt there are SOCOM missions in wonderful places around the world where an austere, unprepared field operational capability is needed in a light strike/observation platform but that is really a different mission than the "traditional" light strike/observation that Scorpion or like platform would be supporting. The Syrian model is what the pols of the 2020s and beyond are likely to support vice the Iraq/Afghanistan model. Air power, Artillery, ISR, Intel, some SOF boots and Advisory support while our local partners do the majority of ground fighting. Large scale occupations in failed states with high costs in blood and treasure are not likely to be attempted for 20+ years IMO after hard slogs with mixed results in Iraq & Afghanistan. Some US Land Power, Lots of US Air Power is the only thing we are likely to do in the future. That Air Power will need to be able to launch from outside the AOR or at the safer extremes of it and then fly to its mission farther than the small turboprops offered can realistically support. Acquiring systems that can legitimately replace 4th / 5th gen in Precision Strike / Observation (tactical ISR) will be needed to support effectively/efficiently the type of missions that we (the US) will be willing to do, Scorpion could do that, the turboprops under consideration really cannot. Again, buy something capable right now, capable of easy growth/modification and doesn't have a lot of LIMFACs to be solved after acquisition.
LookieRookie Posted January 30, 2019 Posted January 30, 2019 (edited) New Words: Could be turboprop, turbojet, rotary, unmanned, system of systems Cliffs: We don't really want it. https://www.defensenews.com/newsletters/2019/01/30/the-air-forces-light-attack-experiment-could-be-expanded-to-feature-drones-helicopters-and-more-aircraft/ Edited January 30, 2019 by LookieRookie
Tank Posted February 15, 2019 Posted February 15, 2019 https://armadainternational.com/2019/02/embraer-and-sierra-nevada-corporation-awarded-contract-to-deliver-12-a-29s-for-the-nigerian-air-force/?utm_source=linkedin
LookieRookie Posted February 16, 2019 Posted February 16, 2019 3 hours ago, Tank said: https://armadainternational.com/2019/02/embraer-and-sierra-nevada-corporation-awarded-contract-to-deliver-12-a-29s-for-the-nigerian-air-force/?utm_source=linkedin So then the 81 FS got a new customer?
Tank Posted February 16, 2019 Posted February 16, 2019 (edited) 10 hours ago, LookieRookie said: So then the 81 FS got a new customer? No... SNC is conducting all training in Waco. Edited February 16, 2019 by Tank
herkbier Posted February 16, 2019 Posted February 16, 2019 hopefully they don’t overpay for them and then ask for the extra to be wired back through western union 1 1
Tank Posted February 22, 2019 Posted February 22, 2019 https://www.airforcetimes.com/news/your-air-force/2019/02/22/navy-a-29-pilot-in-air-forces-light-attack-experiment-died-in-crash-after-sharp-low-speed-turn/?utm_campaign=Socialflow+AIR&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_medium=social
Breckey Posted February 23, 2019 Posted February 23, 2019 The CSAF safety video from November has a video reconstruction of this.
MooseAg03 Posted February 23, 2019 Posted February 23, 2019 https://www.militarytimes.com/news/2019/02/20/pentagons-special-operations-leaders-disappointed-over-handling-of-light-attack-program/Maybe the Pentagon should push for the Army to buy them. Oh wait, then the Air Force will take over and just cancel the program. Then we’ll probably still be buying them under contract and fly them straight to the boneyard.Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk 1
Danger41 Posted February 23, 2019 Posted February 23, 2019 The Special Operations people up and down the line don’t know what they want to use this thing for. It’s frustrating and disheartening hearing AFSOC and joint SOF people not be able to articulate what the airplane would even be used for. If it’s the argument of saving money and saving time off the wings of the CAF fleet (which I think is a great idea), then why does SOF use it? If it’s to do what SOF is doing now with other assets, then an AT-6 is a horrible platform for it. I could see FID, but even then there are other options that are better suited. It honestly seems like a lot of people in SOF that want to fly upside down and shoot a forward firing gun want light attack because it would be fun. I’m all about fun, but come on. /rant 1 1
Tank Posted February 23, 2019 Posted February 23, 2019 15 hours ago, Danger41 said: The Special Operations people up and down the line don’t know what they want to use this thing for. It’s frustrating and disheartening hearing AFSOC and joint SOF people not be able to articulate what the airplane would even be used for. If it’s the argument of saving money and saving time off the wings of the CAF fleet (which I think is a great idea), then why does SOF use it? If it’s to do what SOF is doing now with other assets, then an AT-6 is a horrible platform for it. I could see FID, but even then there are other options that are better suited. It honestly seems like a lot of people in SOF that want to fly upside down and shoot a forward firing gun want light attack because it would be fun. I’m all about fun, but come on. /rant AFSOC Mission Set 1 is to use LA for CAA training and to support the FID mission. That has been the priority coming out of AFSOC for over a year. https://www.defensenews.com/air/2019/02/20/us-delivers-laser-guided-rockets-to-the-lebanese-air-force-to-arm-its-super-tucano-aircraft/?utm_campaign=Socialflow+AIR&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_medium=social 1
Skitzo Posted February 23, 2019 Posted February 23, 2019 AFSOC Mission Set 1 is to use LA for CAA training and to support the FID mission. That has been the priority coming out of AFSOC for over a year. https://www.defensenews.com/air/2019/02/20/us-delivers-laser-guided-rockets-to-the-lebanese-air-force-to-arm-its-super-tucano-aircraft/?utm_campaign=Socialflow+AIR&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_medium=social Not to mention the abysmal analysis for next gen ISR by Johns Hopkins. Some posturing for it for that although seems like we might just be better of buying another fleet of PC-12s after the wings fall off. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Clark Griswold Posted February 24, 2019 Posted February 24, 2019 6 hours ago, Skitzo said: Not to mention the abysmal analysis for next gen ISR by Johns Hopkins. Some posturing for it for that although seems like we might just be better of buying another fleet of PC-12s after the wings fall off. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Has AFSOC released anything (openly) on requirements for next gen manned ISR? Only found one article with mediocre Google-Fu: https://insidedefense.com/daily-news/afsoc-plans-next-generation-manned-aircraft-replace-u-28
BashiChuni Posted February 24, 2019 Posted February 24, 2019 AFSOC is too busy outlawing Friday shirts and morale patches and making sure everyone feels like a “warrior” 1
Steve Davies Posted February 25, 2019 Posted February 25, 2019 On 2/22/2019 at 10:52 PM, Tank said: https://www.airforcetimes.com/news/your-air-force/2019/02/22/navy-a-29-pilot-in-air-forces-light-attack-experiment-died-in-crash-after-sharp-low-speed-turn/?utm_campaign=Socialflow+AIR&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_medium=social Has the Air Force explained how an operational Navy pilot (whose experience appears to have been mostly in an FBW fighter) and a non-fighter AF WSO, came to be flying asymmetric weapons release tests in an ejection seat equipped aircraft with manual controls? And just how wise was all this when they collectively had only about 10 hours' experience in the Super Tucano? Are these questions people are asking, or able to answer?
Tank Posted February 27, 2019 Posted February 27, 2019 https://www.defensenews.com/interviews/2019/02/27/us-air-force-chief-on-the-f-35-quarterback-new-and-improved-f-15-and-future-of-light-attack/ What’s going on with the light-attack program? We’ve been very consistent about the strategy from the beginning. First and foremost, this is all about allies and partners. The National Defense Strategy says that we’re going to invest and increase our relationships with current allies and partners, and build more allies and partners. And because so many are fighting violent extremism at their borders, this was our approach to say: “OK, how do we support the National Defense Strategy by building a weapon system?" We learned in the past that if it’s good enough for us to buy, it tends to be good enough for our allies and partners. And many of the international air chiefs, tell me: “Hey, Dave, I got this going on in my country, I’ve got to deal with it; I want to join you in a fight, but I can’t afford F-16s, I’m never going to get F-35 and I need something else because my weapon systems I’ve got right now are getting older. What do you have to offer me?” The second thing is that as we build the Air Force we need, I have no place I can go within the United States Air Force to trade away capacity to build light attack. It has to be additive. It does do some things inside the Air Force that are very helpful, but it’s not a requirement inside the Air Force. This is a requirement for our allies and partners that we’re working towards. So given those two fundamental assumptions, we opened up to industry to this experiment. And I cannot thank the two companies that joined us enough for their partnership today because they’ve been extraordinary and we’ve learned a ton. Some countries may be better to have an unmanned option; some countries would be better to have a rotary-wing option; some countries want to do a fixed wing but turboprop; some countries want to do fixed wing but turbojet. So we were able to start experimenting with just one of those. So now what can we do to expand the experiment to look at, what is the right mix? And how do we bring allies and partners in right now with us — not just periodically parachuting in? For us to issue an RFP would set an expectation that we’re ready to go to selection when we’re still working our way through what the strategy would be. That would be, in my mind, a bit irresponsible. I talked to both the CEOs, and we want to make sure we strengthen the partnership we already built as we go forward. 1
LookieRookie Posted February 27, 2019 Posted February 27, 2019 That's a lot of words from the Chief and talking to SNC and Textron about how he "cannot thank the two companies that joined us enough for their partnership." Meanwhile, other sources are saying industry may not trust Big Blue on future partnerships unless there's money upfront. https://www.realcleardefense.com/articles/2019/02/18/air_force_may_lose_credibility_with_industry_over_light_attack_decision_114190.html
Clark Griswold Posted February 27, 2019 Posted February 27, 2019 That's a lot of words from the Chief and talking to SNC and Textron about how he "cannot thank the two companies that joined us enough for their partnership." Meanwhile, other sources are saying industry may not trust Big Blue on future partnerships unless there's money upfront. https://www.realcleardefense.com/articles/2019/02/18/air_force_may_lose_credibility_with_industry_over_light_attack_decision_114190.htmlAfter this and the debacle of Joint Cargo Aircraft big blue is now big blue balls Yeah, I’m really into this it’s really cool ... several years later .... yeah don’t worry about it... but I may be interested later, I’ll let you know...Manned Light Attack / ISR has to be assigned to another branch if the Joint Team wants it as US military capability, after this latest iteration of pump-fake, give it to the USMC as they are doctrinally OTE’d for small warsnow would it need to be small deck capable? maybe but that’s another matter...Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
nsplayr Posted February 28, 2019 Posted February 28, 2019 Glad I took the “under” bet when people were predicting how many airframes the AF would buy! What a freaking debacle. If I were Textron or SNC or anyone else I’d be very leery of any further “experimentation” that required company money for development, and that’s a real shame because the industry has solutions for battlefield problems in this area that could and should be fielded ASAP. It sucks even worse that there’s a new gold star family because of light attack and we accomplished literally nothing that wasn’t already know at ground speed zero about three years ago. 3
raimius Posted February 28, 2019 Posted February 28, 2019 Hate to say it, but "not a requirement inside the Air Force" kind of talk makes us look straight-up dishonest as a service. 1
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now