Clark Griswold Posted July 18, 2020 Posted July 18, 2020 On 7/16/2020 at 10:06 PM, Danger41 said: First of all, this is 100% not an A-10 replacement. It’s simply not designed to be survivable enough in MCO nor have the anti-armor capabilities. It is going to be a dedicated attack aircraft designed to support SOF from austere environments. As such, the austerity is a big emphasis but (as you correctly ID’d) everything has a trade-off. Some of the proposals are very austere but are lacking in some other area. And vice versa. But if SOF modified their requirements and switched to a light and affordable platform, modified / optimized for this mission but still capable of participating at an acceptable / useful role in MCO would that break the ice? There is a logic to Big Blue being hesitant to buy a platform focused on the fight the Civ Leadership / Conventional Joint Leadership is eschewing to focus on the potential big fights. I don't support that hesitation but I understand it. If you can't get rid of an obstacle, go around it to get to want you want. A new fixed wing strike capability independent of ACC that is affordable and relevant to the SOF-centric mission but capable of supporting the Joint Team in MCO. I'm a fanboy for more robust solutions and I realize that changing the question to get a a different answer is to get consensus / buy in is not exactly what we should do but it seems close enough in this case. More capability might mean less austere capability, more care and feeding but maybe not to an unacceptable level. Not telling the SOF community to sell their soul to get Big Blue to buy into, maybe just a lease...
Hawg15 Posted July 18, 2020 Posted July 18, 2020 9 hours ago, SurelySerious said: APKWS is where it’s at. Depends on the intent of the strike. It’s a good weapon to carry, but has plenty of limitations that make it a poor primary. If there’s important dudes in a soft vehicle that need to die, I wouldn’t take one over a mav or hellfire. I’ve seen dudes get out of the back seat and walk away after putting one through a windshield. It can even land directly next to someone and do nothing but scare the shit out of them based on where it impacts in relation to its direction of flight. If the intent is to break contact for a SOF team in a TIC, then you want big booms and good guns. I’d also want WPs for marking/giving a reference to guys on the ground. It’s great for pax/motos/soft vics you have the time to track though.
SurelySerious Posted July 18, 2020 Posted July 18, 2020 8 hours ago, Hawg15 said: Depends on the intent of the strike. It’s a good weapon to carry, but has plenty of limitations that make it a poor primary. If there’s important dudes in a soft vehicle that need to die, I wouldn’t take one over a mav or hellfire. I’ve seen dudes get out of the back seat and walk away after putting one through a windshield. It can even land directly next to someone and do nothing but scare the shit out of them based on where it impacts in relation to its direction of flight. If the intent is to break contact for a SOF team in a TIC, then you want big booms and good guns. I’d also want WPs for marking/giving a reference to guys on the ground. It’s great for pax/motos/soft vics you have the time to track though. Good points; although single hellfires and airburst 38s/54s are all known to have people walk away from what appear to be direct hits. When SOF take out someone important, they don’t use single weapons.
Clark Griswold Posted July 19, 2020 Posted July 19, 2020 Just posted to further the idea of a jet based solution and an expansion to the capabilities of a platform to meet Light/Independent Attack - Armed Overwatch: Light fighter/attack capes can be brought to austere op locations, some cost to be sure but not impossible or impossibly expensive. Gripen is still in production with several variants (C/D/E/F) available. Developing a new type would likely run cranium first into the economic problem of a small production run of a specialized type, along with development time and monetary cost, 99% non-starter so modify and procure an existing type. Get a two seater; look to lighten the airframe for better TOLD/rough field performance, maybe more fuel capacity, get enhanced FOD protection mods, consider a new engine (higher bypass more fuel efficient), attack mission set focused avionics, organic sensors, software but still capable of reasonable self-defense / electronic protection, robust LOS/BLOS datlink capability, etc... Not cheap to be sure but if done with a partner nation outside of the conventional DoD acquisition system, you might be able to direct to solutions in a MUCH quicker timeline, to me this should take 3 years from green light, requirements/design mod, testing and IOC. We used to get things done this fast, there is no reason other than an army of shoe clerks that we can't again. An improved version of Scorpion might meet this but methinks the cost of developing it, the growth in capabilities and then size/weight/power requirements would basically create a new aircraft. Use a design that is right now about a 50% solution, the mods asked for less in most performance areas that are difficult to achieve Relatively inexpensive to acquire, operate and support. Exceeds the needs of SOF but not overkill, avoids the perceived problem of underkill of Big Blue that is a cardinal sin and could be part of the fights against capable opponents in some new roles (arsenal, jamming, sensor node, etc...) This idea is for a requirement that doesn't currently exist to my knowledge, but folding up the Armed Overwatch, Light Attack requirements into a new one, call it something like Next Generation Light Fighter/Attack/Scout Aircraft. Expands the access of SOF to capabilities for the current LIC/COIN fight but is capable of the Grey/Hybrid fight while being relevant to the conventional fight.
bfargin Posted August 16, 2020 Posted August 16, 2020 (edited) https://theaviationist.com/2020/08/14/icarus-aerospace-unveils-a-new-tactical-air-vehicle-family-of-aircraft/?fbclid=IwAR3gRTZCtbfNGqoCvtH60DZONzVVSxzm0IG6JBVWdygjDVl2nsVP1kybyx4 I haven't seen this one posted here (at least couldn't find it). Forgive me if I missed a previous post about it. Claims a ceiling at arou nd 50K feet. Their claims: -Up to 3 times more electrical power generating capability -Unmatched payload -Fastest cruise speed -Inflight refueling -360deg AESA RADAR -Network Centric -SWARM Capable Edited August 16, 2020 by bfargin
LookieRookie Posted August 16, 2020 Posted August 16, 2020 And all that’s needed to get this from vaporware to prototype is a cool $50M courtesy of US taxpayers. 1
Clark Griswold Posted August 16, 2020 Posted August 16, 2020 11 minutes ago, LookieRookie said: And all that’s needed to get this from vaporware to prototype is a cool $50M courtesy of US taxpayers. Yup but one company with their money has already done most of the homework 1 1
Scuba Posted September 1, 2020 Posted September 1, 2020 I may have missed the explanation on armed overwatch versus light attack. Any updates on the program? Also, SEC. 180 discusses a roadmap for SOCOM ISR. Any bets on this getting rolled into next generation manned or unmanned ISR? 10+ year old thread.... amazing. https://www.congress.gov/116/bills/s4049/BILLS-116s4049es.pdf SEC. 175. Prohibition on purchase of armed overwatch aircraft. The Secretary of the Air Force may not purchase any aircraft for the Air Force Special Operations Command for the purpose of “armed overwatch” until such time as the Chief of Staff of the Air Force certifies to the congressional defense committees that general purpose forces of the Air Force do not have the skill or capacity to provide close air support and armed overwatch to United States forces deployed operationally. SEC. 176. Special operations armed overwatch. (a) Prohibition.—None of the funds authorized to be appropriated by this Act for the Department of Defense may be used to acquire armed overwatch aircraft for the United States Special Operations Command, and the Department of Defense may not acquire armed overwatch aircraft for the United States Special Operations Command in fiscal year 2021. (b) Analysis required.— (1) IN GENERAL.—Not later than July 1, 2021, the Secretary of Defense, in coordination with the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Special Operations and Low Intensity Conflict and the Commander of the United States Special Operations Command, shall conduct an analysis to define the special operations-peculiar requirements for armed overwatch aircraft and to determine whether acquisition of a new special operations-peculiar platform is the most cost effective means of fulfilling such requirements.
Tank Posted September 2, 2020 Posted September 2, 2020 8 hours ago, Scuba said: I may have missed the explanation on armed overwatch versus light attack. Any updates on the program? Also, SEC. 180 discusses a roadmap for SOCOM ISR. Any bets on this getting rolled into next generation manned or unmanned ISR? 10+ year old thread.... amazing. https://www.congress.gov/116/bills/s4049/BILLS-116s4049es.pdf SEC. 175. Prohibition on purchase of armed overwatch aircraft. The Secretary of the Air Force may not purchase any aircraft for the Air Force Special Operations Command for the purpose of “armed overwatch” until such time as the Chief of Staff of the Air Force certifies to the congressional defense committees that general purpose forces of the Air Force do not have the skill or capacity to provide close air support and armed overwatch to United States forces deployed operationally. SEC. 176. Special operations armed overwatch. (a) Prohibition.—None of the funds authorized to be appropriated by this Act for the Department of Defense may be used to acquire armed overwatch aircraft for the United States Special Operations Command, and the Department of Defense may not acquire armed overwatch aircraft for the United States Special Operations Command in fiscal year 2021. (b) Analysis required.— (1) IN GENERAL.—Not later than July 1, 2021, the Secretary of Defense, in coordination with the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Special Operations and Low Intensity Conflict and the Commander of the United States Special Operations Command, shall conduct an analysis to define the special operations-peculiar requirements for armed overwatch aircraft and to determine whether acquisition of a new special operations-peculiar platform is the most cost effective means of fulfilling such requirements. Light Attack was an ACC led initiative that had an experiment between the AT-6 and A-29 with the ultimate plan of ACC receiving 305 aircraft and AFSOC receiving 55 aircraft. What really came from this is that ACC is receiving 3x AT-6’s and AFSOC is receiving 3x A-29’s. Armed Overwatch is a SOCOM led initiative that is scheduled to have an experiment this November between 5 different strike/ISR aircraft. The ultimate plan is for AFSOC to receive 75 aircraft to support SOCOM ops. 2
raimius Posted September 18, 2020 Posted September 18, 2020 ...and more delays... https://www.military.com/daily-news/2020/09/17/special-ops-plan-buy-new-light-attack-fleet-may-get-pushed-back.html
tac airlifter Posted January 2, 2021 Posted January 2, 2021 Tank, Happy 2021! How’s those CAA A-29s doing? 3
Clark Griswold Posted January 2, 2021 Posted January 2, 2021 1 hour ago, tac airlifter said: Tank, Happy 2021! How’s those CAA A-29s doing?
Clark Griswold Posted January 2, 2021 Posted January 2, 2021 New year and all so restart the discussion... Any unseen movements, RUMINT, hearsay, etc... for Light Attack?
Tank Posted January 2, 2021 Posted January 2, 2021 4 hours ago, tac airlifter said: Tank, Happy 2021! How’s those CAA A-29s doing? Doing good. Taken a little longer than planned but they’re now on schedule. The planes will be arriving at end of this year and the CAAs will start flying them in Jan 2022.
tac airlifter Posted January 2, 2021 Posted January 2, 2021 39 minutes ago, Tank said: Doing good. Taken a little longer than planned but they’re now on schedule. The planes will be arriving at end of this year and the CAAs will start flying them in Jan 2022. Any flying hours programmed for the 2 arriving? And what’s your delivery plan for the scotch?
Tank Posted January 2, 2021 Posted January 2, 2021 (edited) 21 minutes ago, tac airlifter said: Any flying hours programmed for the 2 arriving? And what’s your delivery plan for the scotch? First 8x initial cadre hours are programmed via the contracted syllabi and that’ll be the first 18 months of flying. After the initial cadre, nothing planned yet but those hours are being planned in the FY23 FYDP. PM me your address... Edited January 2, 2021 by Tank 1
HU&W Posted January 2, 2021 Posted January 2, 2021 4 hours ago, Clark Griswold said: New year and all so restart the discussion... Any unseen movements, RUMINT, hearsay, etc... for Light Attack? Well, there’s this language in the NDAA. “The committee believes that the Air Force Special Operations Command (AFSOC) should make every effort to fully utilize the total force to meet aircrew training and operational requirements in platforms like the AC–130J, CV–22, MC–12W, and A–29 in order to meet the requirements of the National Defense Strategy (NDS).”
jice Posted January 2, 2021 Posted January 2, 2021 (edited) 1 hour ago, HU&W said: Well, there’s this language in the NDAA. “The committee believes that the Air Force Special Operations Command (AFSOC) should make every effort to fully utilize the total force to meet aircrew training and operational requirements in platforms like the AC–130J, CV–22, MC–12W, and A–29 in order to meet the requirements of the National Defense Strategy (NDS).” That’s from the SASC report; important context but not the actual law. The report goes on to say something to the effect of ‘don’t forget about the guard!’ in the section you quoted. Elsewhere in the SASC report, the committee expresses concerns over the rapid acquisition model and AFSOC/SOCOM’s ability to support. In the NDAA itself (section somewhere between 130 and 150?), there’s a prohibition on the USAF from procuring Armed Overwatch through 2023 and SOCOM through 2021. So, money where the mouth is = $0 this year A bit difficult to determine the intent and long game. Would love to chat with anybody truly in the know via PM. Edited January 2, 2021 by jice 1
HU&W Posted January 2, 2021 Posted January 2, 2021 18 minutes ago, jice said: That’s from the SASC report; important context but not the actual law. The report goes on to say something to the effect of ‘don’t forget about the guard!’ in the section you quoted. Elsewhere in the SASC report, the committee expresses concerns over the rapid acquisition model and AFSOC/SOCOM’s ability to support. In the NDAA itself (section somewhere between 130 and 150?), there’s a prohibition on the USAF from procuring Armed Overwatch through 2023 and SOCOM through 2021. So, money where the mouth is = $0 this year A bit difficult to determine the intent and long game. Would love to chat with anybody truly in the know via PM. Good point. Thx.
Clark Griswold Posted January 3, 2021 Posted January 3, 2021 2 hours ago, HU&W said: Good point. Thx. Ditto as to @jice 's post
Jayhawker Posted February 18, 2021 Posted February 18, 2021 @Clark Griswold Time to bust out the confetti... https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/39302/the-air-force-finally-has-its-first-new-at-6e-wolverine-light-attack-aircraft
Clark Griswold Posted February 18, 2021 Posted February 18, 2021 1 hour ago, Jayhawker said: @Clark Griswold Time to bust out the confetti... https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/39302/the-air-force-finally-has-its-first-new-at-6e-wolverine-light-attack-aircraft I'm glad that iron is finally arriving on the ramp, fingers crossed they actually get the other two. Interesting idea to make them a middleman node in the datalink architecture. 1
ClearedHot Posted February 18, 2021 Posted February 18, 2021 Bad MO FO Insane load outs with unreal station time. 1
Lawman Posted February 18, 2021 Posted February 18, 2021 Bad MO FO Insane load outs with unreal station time.Infinitely superior to both A-29 and AT-6 for the intended role...Ignored completely in our attempts to sell it for AVFID because it’s “just a crop duster with guns,” and not “fully aerobatic.”Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk 1
Tank Posted February 18, 2021 Posted February 18, 2021 (edited) 1 hour ago, ClearedHot said: Bad MO FO Insane load outs with unreal station time. The AT-802U is good at what it’s intended for but I’ll argue that the IOMAX Archangel is better for multiple reasons. Both though have pros and cons and the cons outweigh the pros for the USAF compared to the AT-6C and A-29C. Pros: lower cost, long loiter time, weapons and payload Cons: slow airspeed, non-pressurized, low cockpit visibility, non-ejection seat https://iomax.net/archangel/ I like the Paramount Group Bronco II. Biggest problems though is that it’s not FAA certified and there’s no US based projection line yet. https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/33277/new-team-pitches-south-africas-bronco-ii-light-attack-plane-to-american-special-operators Edited February 18, 2021 by Tank
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