-
Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?
Go here:
Edit Account Details and Profile
AT-6 excluded from Light Attack Aircraft
- Thread starter HokiePilot
- Start date
Seems like an airplane we could use too. Oh wait, sorry, it doesn't fit the stealth fighter, attack, VSTOL, Stand off, xxxx role at $57,000 (number pulled straight out of my ass) per flight hour. It's just a light attack airplane that a 3rd world country can afford to operate. (But we'll pick up their bills too, even though we can't afford to pay our own.)
...or because we already have aircraft that can do that mission
MasterBates
Well-Known Member
Not as cheaply as a Super T
Sent from a van down by the river via Tapatalk
Sent from a van down by the river via Tapatalk
Interesting subject, but you're basically saying the fuel savings and new aircraft cost alone would be cheaper than the aircraft and pilot's we've already bought and trained? Not to mention standing up another logistical pipeline for a new aircraft? and more squadrons? and a defense industry that squeezes every penny out of the government? In my opinion, I think any flavor of RQ-7, MQ-1, AV-8B, F/A-18, AH-1W/Z, UH-1Y, and god knows what else the USAF brings to the table is just as adequate and more cost effective.
...but a Super T would be fun as hell to fly, no argument there..
Short term savings? No. Long term savings? Well, if we had Super T's to use in AFG perhaps we'd have saved (more expensive) hours on our Hornets and Harriers.
There is going to be a substantial upfront cost on any new airplane. The long term operation cost of a single engine turboprop is going to be cheaper than a carrier capable twin engine jet.
This is kind of like saying that buying that Mustang 20 years ago was a bad idea, and now you wish you had a Prius. Additionally, If it's hours and fuel you complain about - UAVs and Helos have way better fuel efficiency and TOS than most if not all jet aircraft. There are limitations with them as well but it's not exactly worth going out and buying new aircraft to resolve issues that already have decent workarounds. So what's the argument here?
MasterBates
Well-Known Member
It's not the fuel cost that kills helo operating costs. It's all the dynamic components, maintenance and inspection.
I've been trying to justify more frequent use of my corporate flight assets, and the cost of flying a jet ranger is scary vs a king air.
Most of my analysis makes getting a stol FW the best bang for the buck.
Sent from a van down by the river via Tapatalk
I've been trying to justify more frequent use of my corporate flight assets, and the cost of flying a jet ranger is scary vs a king air.
Most of my analysis makes getting a stol FW the best bang for the buck.
Sent from a van down by the river via Tapatalk
Dudes...stop yer bitching. All of this could be solved if we just widened the main cabin door on a Papa-Trece and put a Bofors or a howitzer in there. Then we could have a weapon we would never use overland, to match the weapons we don't use overwater.
I've been playing a lot of Zombie gunship in my downtime...Remember, if it was hard, the Air Force wouldn't do it.
I've been playing a lot of Zombie gunship in my downtime...Remember, if it was hard, the Air Force wouldn't do it.
The decent workaround is the light attack aircraft. It's basically manned ISR with weapons. A helo can't provide the same over watch as FW can. And you can't do it quietly. The light attack has a small footprint and doesn't require a nuclear carrier sitting off the coast. You want to talk about cost? How about the cost to keep a CVN on station? Light attack provides all the conveniences off a UAV with the higher SA of a manned AC.
So if it isn't operating off a CVN, doesn't that imply some sort of airfield, where we can maintain adequate security and whatever assets are needed for a relatively permissive environment? What does that cost?
We could use the Super-T ICW the P-8, it will drop the buoys that the P-8 can't because:
1. It's not cleared to drop ordnance yet
2. It will not fly low enough to actually drop buoys
Screw it, we don't do ASW anymore, so forget the whole idea...
I think one thing you all are forgetting about is the politically laden procurement aspect of this. I think the military is scared if they buy some of these there would have been/will be less justification to buy and/or keep F-16/AH-64/AH-1Z/AV-8/F-35's. I actually think they are justified to a degree in that fear since it would certainly be used by many to justify less of the more capable aircraft, the numbers would be the same but look at all the money we saved! After that it becomes a death spiral with people pointing to the fact we aren't using those nice F fighters like the F-22 so why not cut more? Soon enough we are left with a whole lot of turboprops that aren't much use outside the current war we are in right now and rapidly pulling out of.
It is the same reason that the Navy was so adamantly opposed to the 'Sea Control Ship' and probably why the USAF was so dead set against the C-27J. It is a niche aircraft that couldn't be used in any sort conflict with any credible threat. And before you say that we haven't faced that sort of thing too often recently may I point out that sort of environment is what we faced includes OAF, Desert Storm, Libya, the initial stages of OIF, ONW, OSW and possibly Syria soon. The Super T would not have been able to be used in any of them while all of our fighters, bombers and in many cases attack helos were.
Again, the footprint for a squadron of F-18 / AV-8Bs is much larger than would be required for a couple of light attack A/C. There are also a lot of airfields that aren't long enough for fighter ops, but could support light attack. To Bert's statement: There are bases there now. With runways that would support light attack. They also support Army squads and helo ops. They wouldn't be creating something new, just adding to what already exists and bringing an added capability to the fight. What do you think is more expensive? Placing a few A/C in a location that already exists, or continuing to support a CSG and all that entails? The difference is ridiculous and I find it hard to believe that you seriously think the CVN is the correct answer. I'm not going to do the math, but you could probably purchase a few squads of light attack with the gas that is used just getting the airwing into country.
Take J-bad for example. You could put a few small fixed wing assets there that could provide the necessary support for the people working out of J-bad and the surrounding areas. You could do the same with a couple of Harriers or Hornets, but they aren't going to have the loiter time nor are they the best asset for the job sometimes.
I understand you trying to fight for your mission Hotdog, but this isn't your mission. Light attack would fill a hole that you can't.
I've talked to dudes on the ground about this. They want it.
Take J-bad for example. You could put a few small fixed wing assets there that could provide the necessary support for the people working out of J-bad and the surrounding areas. You could do the same with a couple of Harriers or Hornets, but they aren't going to have the loiter time nor are they the best asset for the job sometimes.
I understand you trying to fight for your mission Hotdog, but this isn't your mission. Light attack would fill a hole that you can't.
I've talked to dudes on the ground about this. They want it.