Air Force Mulls Low-Cost Fighter Experiment

[Treetop Flyer]

That's what the F-16 was supposed to be.

Yeah but at this point it's a do everything jet, and the new ones coming off the line are far from the lightweight fighter originally imagined.

The last heyday of the 'high-low mix' in DoD was in the 70s, and it was based on the idea that we needed to be prepared for an unlikely but possible WWIII scenario and more likely but less-expensive interventions. The problem with that is you can't keep your gold-plated peer-competitor stuff on the shelf while you're landing in Beirut or escorting oil tankers. And you can't sideline all of your counter-insurgency, invade Ferblakkistan stuff as soon as it goes off with the varsity.

Just as a for-instance, there was pushback against deploying the Ticos to the Gulf during the Tanker Wars, because that's 'not what they were meant for.' The response from NAVCENT was something to the effect of, do you have another shooting war going on at the moment?

What I'm picturing is something that could be an advanced trainer, with enough air to air capability to shoot down a civilian jet, and the ability to drop a laser jdam with a targeting pod. That's what our top of the line jets spend all of their time doing other than existing and training for deterrence.

 

[azguy]

I hope they don't fall into the same traps the Navy did with its "Low-Cost Warship Experiment."

 

[jmcquate]

We could always do what the Brits did and arm some T-45s. Sort of split the difference.

 

[Uncle Fester]

What I'm picturing is something that could be an advanced trainer, with enough air to air capability to shoot down a civilian jet, and the ability to drop a laser jdam with a targeting pod. That's what our top of the line jets spend all of their time doing other than existing and training for deterrence.

What you're describing is an airplane equivalent to the LCS concept. Low-cost, buy in large numbers, bolt on weapons capability when/as needed, because you don't need CRUDES to do a lot of the workaday ops we're doing these days. And while I think the concept of a low-cost fighter makes sense, so did LCS in theory, and I suspect they'd wind up with the same issues. I mean, you don't need an F-22 over Syria. But they're there, because the F-16s and A-10s are getting worn out and meanwhile we have the WonderJet of the Future doing airshows and recruiting posters.

 

[SynixMan]

What @Treetop Flyer is describing is basically this:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/KAI_T-50_Golden_Eagle

Which is ironically up for the T-X competition!

 

[Jim123]

They'll spread production across about 200 different places across the country and that will make it cost three times what it should.

 

[Flash]

What you're describing is an airplane equivalent to the LCS concept. Low-cost, buy in large numbers, bolt on weapons capability when/as needed, because you don't need CRUDES to do a lot of the workaday ops we're doing these days. And while I think the concept of a low-cost fighter makes sense, so did LCS in theory, and I suspect they'd wind up with the same issues. I mean, you don't need an F-22 over Syria. But they're there, because the F-16s and A-10s are getting worn out and meanwhile we have the WonderJet of the Future doing airshows and recruiting posters.

I don't think it'll work out for political reasons but a small force of low-cost light attack aircraft would be a pretty easy buy since they exist already. But we already have an equivalent aircraft fleet for that already, the A-10. It would survive just about as long against modern SAM's and air threats as a Super Tucano and is basically being used for the same job now. So, winning!

Actually having the F-22 over Syria is nice right now with the Russians and their newest fighters there, a nice insurance policy and deterrent.

 

[squorch2]

They'll spread production across about 200 different places across the country and that will make it cost three times what it should.

Sounds like what happens in federal hiring freezes.

 

[RadicalDude]

We could always do what the Brits did and arm some T-45s. Sort of split the difference.

The hawk at least has some guts. I wouldn't place my money on the t-45 being able to intercept anything except maybe a Cessna.

 

[Uncle Fester]

It's difficult to define requirements for a low-cost CAS/COIN when we can't define the threat. An A-29 might be good in some environments but what about if we're, say, intervening somewhere against an insurgency with a stronger MANPAD or ECM game than we've seen in a long time? To keep the LCS analogy going, the main argument against it is that it's not survivable in a high-threat environment, even though it was never really meant to fight in high threat environments. It was meant to be a flexible, low-cost small combatant for low-threat presence/patrol missions. In today's budget environment, it's difficult to argue for procurement programs for weapons systems that are good 'up to a point'.

 

[Flash]

We could always do what the Brits did and arm some T-45s. Sort of split the difference.

The hawk at least has some guts. I wouldn't place my money on the t-45 being able to intercept anything except maybe a Cessna.

The whole idea behind RAF putting Sidewinders and a cannon in their Hawks was for last-ditch airfield defense, to kill leakers who made it through their Phantoms and Tornados. Pretty easy to defend fixed targets, and they were going to hide from their trainer fleet being flwown by instructors.

 

[Randy Daytona]

It's difficult to define requirements for a low-cost CAS/COIN when we can't define the threat. An A-29 might be good in some environments but what about if we're, say, intervening somewhere against an insurgency with a stronger MANPAD or ECM game than we've seen in a long time? To keep the LCS analogy going, the main argument against it is that it's not survivable in a high-threat environment, even though it was never really meant to fight in high threat environments. It was meant to be a flexible, low-cost small combatant for low-threat presence/patrol missions. In today's budget environment, it's difficult to argue for procurement programs for weapons systems that are good 'up to a point'.

To add onto what someone suggested earlier, would the best option be to use the current training aircraft (in this case T-6), to lower the cost of aircraft, parts and training, i.e., everyone who does a VT tour then be eligible for a follow on tour in a dedicated low-cost COIN unit?

 

[Treetop Flyer]

To add onto what someone suggested earlier, would the best option be to use the current training aircraft (in this case T-6), to lower the cost of aircraft, parts and training, i.e., everyone who does a VT tour then be eligible for a follow on tour in a dedicated low-cost COIN unit?

That literally made me laugh out loud

 

[armada1651]

To add onto what someone suggested earlier, would the best option be to use the current training aircraft (in this case T-6), to lower the cost of aircraft, parts and training, i.e., everyone who does a VT tour then be eligible for a follow on tour in a dedicated low-cost COIN unit?

That seems like a terrible idea to me - there's virtually nothing common between primary training flights and any of the COIN mission sets, even if it is in a similar or identical aircraft.

 

[Randy Daytona]

That literally made me laugh out loud

Trying to find a way to minimize the overall costs... Thought it might be a good fit for some of the WTI skid and HSC types who instruct VT's but the survey says no.