AF Light Air Support Aircraft

[Tank]

1 hour ago, AFsock said:

Looks like Big Blue gave up on Light Attack-

https://www.defensenews.com/smr/federal-budget/2020/02/10/sorry-sierra-nevada-corp-and-textron-the-us-air-force-isnt-buying-light-attack-planes/

Big Blue - Yes; SOCOM - No

SOCOM wanting 75 aircraft for an Armed Overwatch mission. 

[Clark Griswold]

Big Blue - Yes; SOCOM - No
SOCOM wanting 75 aircraft for an Armed Overwatch mission. 

How’s SOCOM going to man this?
Split among the force providers or a joint unit?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Tank]

13 hours ago, Clark Griswold said:

How’s SOCOM going to man this?
Split among the force providers or a joint unit?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Predominately AFSOC...

[nsplayr]

I've never heard a great answer to this: who will man these theoretical 75 new AFSOC aircraft?

Last time I checked pilots are in relatively short supply Air Force-wide, and the CSO community is small enough that you can't just shit out like 200+ new CSOs/WSOs/whatever, especially if you want ones competent enough to fly a tactical, acrobatic, weapons-employing aircraft.

I always asked this question when the rumor mill suggested that Guard MQ-9 units would also see light attack at their bases. I mean...cool...but how the F do you man that when half your officer force is 18X and your sensor operators are 100% enlisted? It never added up.

No one is/was a bigger supporter of light attack than me; we should have done this 15 years ago and the second best time to do it is now. BUT, I'm not sure how it actually happens even if we wave a magic wand an 75 shiny new pieces of iron show up on the ramp at Hurby or Pope or wherever.

Edited February 11, 2020 by nsplayr

[FLEA]

2 hours ago, nsplayr said:

I've never heard a great answer to this: who will man these theoretical 75 new AFSOC aircraft?

Last time I checked pilots are in relatively short supply Air Force-wide, and the CSO community is small enough that you can't just shit out like 200+ new CSOs/WSOs/whatever, especially if you want ones competent enough to fly a tactical, acrobatic, weapons-employing aircraft.

I always asked this question when the rumor mill suggested that Guard MQ-9 units would also see light attack at their bases. I mean...cool...but how the F do you man that when half your officer force is 18X and your sensor operators are 100% enlisted? It never added up.

No one is/was a bigger supporter of light attack than me; we should have done this 15 years ago and the second best time to do it is now. BUT, I'm not sure how it actually happens even if we wave a magic wand an 75 shiny new pieces of iron show up on the ramp at Hurby or Pope or wherever.

Bro you act like these things are actually going to show up at Hurby or Pope. Did the C-27 teach you anything? Even after it's bought big blue can still shut this off before they have to own it! Those 75 LAFs are easily 1/10th of a shiny new B-21!!! 

Edited February 11, 2020 by FLEA

[BadgerDave]

I'm so confused.; industry press saying OA-X is dead.

https://www.defensenews.com/smr/federal-budget/2020/02/10/sorry-sierra-nevada-corp-and-textron-the-us-air-force-isnt-buying-light-attack-planes/

 

 

Edited February 11, 2020 by BadgerDave

[Day Man]

14 minutes ago, BadgerDave said:

I'm so confused.; industry press saying OA-X is dead.

https://www.defensenews.com/smr/federal-budget/2020/02/10/sorry-sierra-nevada-corp-and-textron-the-us-air-force-isnt-buying-light-attack-planes/

 

 

Quote

In a statement to Defense News, Air Force spokeswoman Ann Stefanek confirmed that the service will not move forward with a program of record for light attack planes.

Instead, U.S. Special Operations Command has requested $106 million in the fiscal 2021 defense budget for its armed overwatch requirement

 

Edited February 11, 2020 by Day Man

[BadgerDave]

20 minutes ago, Day Man said:

 

Ugh; sorry about that.  That's what skimming Twitter for news will get you.

[Tank]

5 hours ago, FLEA said:

Bro you act like these things are actually going to show up at Hurby or Pope. Did the C-27 teach you anything? Even after it's bought big blue can still shut this off before they have to own it! Those 75 LAFs are easily 1/10th of a shiny new B-21!!! 

True, but this is a SOCOM request and people tend to do what SOCOM wants...

Edited February 12, 2020 by Tank

[tac airlifter]

There is a plan to man 75 armed overwatch aircraft by divesting some current platforms.  It will be an AFSOC program partially funded by SOCOM, a similar construct to an existing program.
 

 

[gear3green]

Does anyone think these can go to an older guard fighter unit who has Mq9s? 

[Breckey]

No. Reference nsplayr's comment above.

[Tank]

17 minutes ago, gear3green said:

Does anyone think these can go to an older guard fighter unit who has Mq9s? 

No...

[Clark Griswold]

Is SOCOM only considering the turbos evaluated under LAE or are they considering Scorpion also?

[tac airlifter]

5 hours ago, Clark Griswold said:

Is SOCOM only considering the turbos evaluated under LAE or are they considering Scorpion also?

Armed overwatch can be done with existing aircraft recapitalized or reconfigured.  SOCOM is considering a host of options, and I personally don’t think the A29 or AT6 are viable candidates. 

[Clark Griswold]

Armed overwatch can be done with existing aircraft recapitalized or reconfigured.  SOCOM is considering a host of options, and I personally don’t think the A29 or AT6 are viable candidates. 

Which platforms recap’d or modified?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[AFsock]

6 hours ago, tac airlifter said:

Armed overwatch can be done with existing aircraft recapitalized or reconfigured.  SOCOM is considering a host of options, and I personally don’t think the A29 or AT6 are viable candidates. 

Not USAF... But you get the idea.

[viper154]

5 hours ago, Clark Griswold said:

Which platforms recap’d or modified?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I’m not in the know but I would guess the light fixed wing ISR fleet, King Air/PC-12s 

[Clark Griswold]

I’m not in the know but I would guess the light fixed wing ISR fleet, King Air/PC-12s 

Yeah, if they’re not going to buy new iron


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[nsplayr]

On 2/11/2020 at 4:49 PM, tac airlifter said:

There is a plan to man 75 armed overwatch aircraft by divesting some current platforms.  It will be an AFSOC program partially funded by SOCOM, a similar construct to an existing program.
 

 

https://www.airforcemag.com/socoms-armed-overwatch-expected-to-replace-the-afsoc-u-28-fleet/

Well there ya go. @tac airlifter with the solid gouge as always!

[viper154]

1 hour ago, Clark Griswold said:

Yeah, if they’re not going to buy new iron


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I think even if they do buy new hardware they are going to go with something along those lines. It’s a easier transition those crews than to find pointy nose types to put in cockpits and both light ISR fleets were intended to be “temporary”. They now have been around for some time and are getting up there in airframe hours. 
 

There is also a significant reduction in risk operating out of the small arm/manpad environment and using PGMs. It’s a trade off because you are loosing gun capes 

A light gunship could be a option but cost is going to be significantly higher per tail than getting AT-6/Super T or hanging some sensors and hellfire racks on a modified already in production civilian airframe. 

Edited February 13, 2020 by viper154

[Clark Griswold]

1 hour ago, viper154 said:

I think even if they do buy new hardware they are going to go with something along those lines. It’s a easier transition those crews than to find pointy nose types to put in cockpits and both light ISR fleets were intended to be “temporary”. They now have been around for some time and are getting up there in airframe hours. 
 

There is also a significant reduction in risk operating out of the small arm/manpad environment and using PGMs. It’s a trade off because you are loosing gun capes 

A light gunship could be a option but cost is going to be significantly higher per tail than getting AT-6/Super T or hanging some sensors and hellfire racks on a modified already in production civilian airframe. 

Agree, both turbos (AT-6 and A-29) have guns / gun pod capability but methinks this platform (if acquired for reals) will primarily employ APKWS, Hellfire, JAGM, SDB or like PGMs when called to go kinetic 

[Danger41]

USAF 101 and effects based planning...what effect are we after? Is it the ability to provide “armed overwatch” of SOF teams in far flung places and over a long period of time? If it is, I think the AT-6/A-29 just aren’t the best solution due primarily to loiter time considerations. 

[Clark Griswold]

6 minutes ago, Danger41 said:

USAF 101 and effects based planning...what effect are we after? Is it the ability to provide “armed overwatch” of SOF teams in far flung places and over a long period of time? If it is, I think the AT-6/A-29 just aren’t the best solution due primarily to loiter time considerations. 

Good question

@tac airlifter and anyone else who can speak to this (OPSEC and NDAs considered), are the SOCOM requirements the same as the LAAR program's from 2009?

From wiki (reference link bent):

Rough field operations. The RFI requires that the aircraft be capable of operating from semi-prepared runways such as grass or dirt surfaces.
Defensive package. The aircraft will have to include several defensive measures, including a Missile Approach Warning System (MAWS), a Radar warning receiver (RWR), and chaff and flare dispensers.
Armored cockpit and engine.
Long loiter time. The aircraft must be able to fly 5 hour sorties (with 30 minute fuel reserves).
Range. The aircraft must have a 900 nautical mile (1600 km) ferry range.
Data link capability. The aircraft is required to have a line-of-sight data link (with beyond line-of-sight desired) capability of transmitting and receiving still and video images.
Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance (ISR) capabilities. The aircraft will have to laser track and designate targets, as well as track targets using electro-optical and infrared video/still images.
Weaponry. The LAAR aircraft will need at least 4 weapons stores capable of carrying a variety of weapons, including 500 lb bombs, 2.75-inch rockets, rail-launched missiles, and illumination flares. The aircraft will also be capable of aerial gunnery, either with an integrated or pylon mounted gun.
 

Desired traits (but not requirements) included:

Infrared signature suppression for the engine(s).
30,000 ft (9000 m) operational ceiling.
6,000 ft (1800 m) takeoff and landing distance.
Aerobatic capabilities capable of maneuvers such as the Immelmann turn, Cuban eight, and Split S.

I agree with @Danger41 that the fight has moved on (Grey Zone, Hybrid op environments) and a platform for  purely permissive at relatively short ranges is not viable for the on-going and likely future COIN / LIC theaters.

 

Edited February 13, 2020 by Clark Griswold

[Skitzo]

The U-28 has a little more life in it than the statement portends but it is something that should we discuss recap now would be a smart idea. I for one, hope we don’t go with Johns Hopkins to study this again.

 

The platform will have to be very carefully determined because we can’t just generate A-29 or AT-6 pilots at a 1:1 replacement.

 

5 years is 1 year after I retire. I cannot believe I am that old.