Jump to content

AF Light Air Support Aircraft

Fud

By Fud
in General Discussion

 Share

Recommended Posts

  • 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

12xu2a3x3 Flight Lead

12xu2a3x3

Posted
Posted

They should threaten to give them to  Willow Grove, Hancock and Ellington if they want AD big blue to get off their ass.

Clark Griswold Gray Beard

Clark Griswold

Posted
Posted
They should threaten to give them to  Willow Grove, Hancock and Ellington if they want AD big blue to get off their ass.

That would be a helluva pimp slap to the AF from Congress but would probably get the message across

Just buy it AF and get it over with


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Clark Griswold Gray Beard

Clark Griswold

Posted
Posted

Yeah but keep charging that windmill, you'll win someday, maybe...

- Break Break -

Has the USMC released any requirements for a light attack?  There have been mentions of a partnership with the Marines (and others) if the AF finally got to acquiring Light Attack...

https://www.defensenews.com/smr/federal-budget/2019/03/13/air-force-to-buy-handful-of-light-attack-planes-but-will-a-bigger-program-follow/

https://www.businessinsider.com/senate-gives-marine-corps-100-million-for-cheap-light-attack-aircraft-2018-6

Doubt they would have requirements that different than the AF's but you never know.  I would argue the original LAAR requirements are dated and new ones push to a more capable system (shamelless Scorpion plug) but anything official on what the Marines and other potential partners (Aussies) might want/need in LA?

  • 2 weeks later...
nsplayr Gray Beard

nsplayr

Posted
Posted (edited)

Lol, they're just Rick Rolling us all at this point. Honestly I stopped caring what anyone in Big Blue leadership says about light attack, and I worked on the the project personally in my civilian job and was a big proponent in general.

While a light attack capability as an MWS flown by USAF crews could still do a lot of good around the world, it's a good idea that's peak time was probably about 15 years ago and we're pretty clearly now moving in a different direction as an Air Force.

My BL: RIP Light Attack, we hardly knew ye...

Edited by nsplayr
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 2
Clark Griswold Gray Beard

Clark Griswold

Posted
Posted (edited)
16 hours ago, nsplayr said:

Lol, they're just Rick Rolling us all at this point. Honestly I stopped caring what anyone in Big Blue leadership says about light attack, and I worked on the the project personally in my civilian job and was a big proponent in general.

While a light attack capability as an MWS flown by USAF crews could still do a lot of good around the world,  It's a good idea that's peak time was probably about 15 years ago and we're pretty clearly now moving in a different direction as an Air Force.

My BL: RIP Light Attack, we hardly knew ye...

Maybe but maybe not... never underestimate the AF to finally do the right thing after 15+ years of doing the wrong thing.

The light attack requirement is there  and we should have years ago gotten into the lead on this, the Brazilians want to build one:

https://www.airway1.com/brazilian-company-wants-to-launch-light-attack-aircraft/

https://www.janes.com/article/87662/laad-2019-akaer-presents-conceptual-mosquito-multi-role-aircraft

Akaer_mosquito_01.jpg

Just a bit like the OV-10 but imitation is the most sincere form of flattery.

Light Attack should have segued into Light Fighter ala an F-5 or F-20 that would have been part of a family of compatible systems to deliver modern, relevant airpower effects at a reasonable cost to sell to our Allies and keep in our own portfolio.

Edited by Clark Griswold
Sketch Crew Dawg

Sketch

Posted
Posted

Whats intriguing to me is how we had a relatively robust light attack fleet during the cold war, at a time when a conventional war with Russia was the thing we were preparing for, then after the wall fell we got rid of all of our OV-10s, A-4s, A-7s, and half our A-10s and switched our CAS platforms almost exclusively to pointy noses when no near-peer enemies existed.

Then OEF & OIF rolls around and we have a situation where Vipers and Hornets are putting GBUs onto guys with AKs and trucks that cost less than a fin on said bombs. Seems like we went the opposite direction we should've.

  • Like 3
  • Upvote 3
Clark Griswold Gray Beard

Clark Griswold

Posted
Posted
On 9/26/2019 at 12:20 PM, Sketch said:

Whats intriguing to me is how we had a relatively robust light attack fleet during the cold war, at a time when a conventional war with Russia was the thing we were preparing for, then after the wall fell we got rid of all of our OV-10s, A-4s, A-7s, and half our A-10s and switched our CAS platforms almost exclusively to pointy noses when no near-peer enemies existed.

Then OEF & OIF rolls around and we have a situation where Vipers and Hornets are putting GBUs onto guys with AKs and trucks that cost less than a fin on said bombs. Seems like we went the opposite direction we should've.

Yup.

Mike Pietrucha proposed an anti-dote to this a couple of years ago:

RECLAIMING THE AIR ATTACK MISSION: A RADICAL RETURN TO A PROVEN SUCCESS

Good article and worth a read IMHO.

Light Attack Armed Reconnaissance (manned) is still a requirement but the environment has moved on from the COIN/LIC mission of the early 2000's  and while it may seem counter intuitive (or not depending on cynical you are about the AF) if the requirement(s) were updated to the current/projected operational environment and the solution to said requirement(s) were likely a bit more expensive but more capable, the AF might give it a second look.

When rebels or insurgents have modest conventional military capabilities as is becoming common in Grey Zone conflicts, the requirements are going up and if though it is bitter and frustrating, militarily participating in these conflicts to some capacity is often better/cheaper in the long run.   

In practical terms, a platform with:

Medum Strike, Multiple Sensors, Good Endurance, Good Speed, Good Survivability, Growth capacity and low to modest cost for high utilization over long conflicts. 

Nothing great but a lot of things done pretty good.  This would never be a silver bullet but a platform that will be relevant to a range of conflicts in capabilities delivered, threats it can defeat, reliability it can deliver with care and attention to cost.

  • 4 weeks later...
tac airlifter Gray Beard

tac airlifter

Posted
Posted (edited)
On 12/3/2018 at 7:05 PM, Tank said:

The bet is a bottle of scotch that AFSOC will have LAA by 2021.

3 hours ago, Tank said:

It’s finally official!!

https://www.defensenews.com/air/2019/10/25/air-force-officially-buying-light-attack-planes/

We’ll see what happens, but I think I’m enjoying your delicious scotch in 14 months.  I plan to drink it from a brown beret.

Edited by tac airlifter
  • Haha 3
SurelySerious Gray Beard

SurelySerious

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, Day Man said:

Aren't these 2 planes extremely similar? Why buy both and lose economies of scale? 

They’re buying three of each...there’s no economy of scale at that scale. 

  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 1
Lawman Gray Beard

Lawman

Posted
Posted
47 minutes ago, tac airlifter said:

We’ll see what happens, but I think I’m enjoying your delicious scotch in 14 months.  I plan to drink it from a brown beret.

Don’t do that... berets don’t hold crap for water. You’ll waste the scotch.

Blue Flight Lead

Blue

Posted
Posted (edited)

I feel like that article kinda buried the lede....

Quote

The Air Force has said that funding for the initial AT-6 and A-29 buys will come out of the estimated $160 million in unspent funds that Congress appropriated for the effort in previous budgets. Congress has appropriated $200 million in total for the effort since it was announced in late 2016.

So the United States Air Force, the world-renowned King of spending taxpayer dollars, has been sitting on $160 million of unspent funds for Light Attack?  With some of those funds up to three years old? 

I think that's the most powerful piece of evidence showing that the Air Force does not care about Light Attack. 

Edited by Blue
  • Like 1
Sprkt69 Flight Lead

Sprkt69

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, Blue said:

I feel like that article kinda buried the lede....

So the United States Air Force, the world-renowned King of spending taxpayer dollars, has been sitting on $160 million of unspent funds for Light Attack?  With some of those funds up to three years old? 

I think that's the most powerful piece of evidence showing that the Air Force does not care about Light Attack. 

You are surprised by this from a service that does so well at managing its pilot force?

  • 3 weeks later...

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...