You'd also have to not separate them in the middle of that tour because VT(P) wasn't "production" enough for Millington.
-
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
Air Force Mulls Low-Cost Fighter Experiment
- Thread starter Randy Daytona
- Start date
My $0.02: In the current era, any aircraft with a human in the cockpit by definition cannot not be a "low cost" aircraft - unless the pilot is deemed expendable, which U.S. military pilots are not.
There's no low cost way to do that. Even without a new light attack aircraft, the USAF is counting on all of the A-10 maintainers to be retrained on F-35A maintenance... which isn't happening bc the Warthogs are still flying. That's over 1,000 or so billets right there.
Oldie but a goodie............and she has good genes. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piper_PA-48_Enforcer
That probably has a lot to do with the Afghans flying/ maintaining it these days.
Not really sure you know what you are talking about, an aircraft like the A-29 has a much lower cost per hour than aircraft like the A-10 and F-16.
You could ask the FARC if they agree, the leaders that are still alive that is.
You mentioned earlier the A-29 beat out the AT-6 in competition. Any idea if it was close or did the A-29 blow away the AT-6?
Not after you factor in "other" costs such as:
- increased likelihood of CSAR costs (relative to 5th Gen platform) due to likely contested future operating environment
- increased likelihood of veterans medical costs (relative to 5th Gen platform) due to likely contested future operating environment
- increased likelihood of paying survivor benefits after MIA/KIA (relative to 5th Gen platform) due to likely contested future operating environment
- increased likelihood of follow-on costs of failing to achieve national objectives (relative to 5th Gen platform) in a future conflict against a near peer adversary
Yeah, it's cheaper now, but if X more aviators get shot down in a shittier low budget airframe, there are back-end costs that the bean counters don't typically account for. Quality in battle is hard to factor. Case in point: 1941-44, would you rather have 3 Tigers or 5 Shermans?
About the only cost that matters is the cost of having someone's head chopped off on video, and you didn't mention it.
Survivors benefits, medical and that other silly shit is pennies compared to the cost of the high end jets or even the ordnance we are dropping, and CSAR is there anyway so it's not a cost.
Just for reference, Germany built 1,368 Tiger I's and 569 Tiger II's. We built 44,286 Shermans.
Ya........well who won. Different war........different circumstances. Seriously everyone, work the problem. CAS, in a permissive air to air environment, non-sophisticative ground to air environment (golden BB). We need something more survivable than rotary (speed and angels). Cost effective ( no F-xx). Something our aviation challenged allies can operate effectively after we leave. I hate to say this.............but something like an Su-25 would be pretty good.
Last edited:
I think the AT-6 was DQ'd and didn't make the final cut because it didn't meet some of the basic requirements but I don't know the details. They were starting from way behind though, the AT-6 had to be developed from scratch while the A-29 was already operational and had even seen combat.
I don't even know where to begin, none of those costs are likely to be a factor at all as Treetop already mentioned. You even missed the whole point of the 'light attack' alternative platform, an aircraft that would operate only in permissive environments like we are fighting in today.
With the proliferation and reduced cost of black market/ gray market MANPADS, I'm not sure where "permissive airspace" exists anymore (except maybe open ocean, CONUS, Antarctic). Syria sure hasn't been permissive for Russian fixed and rotary wing aircraft. Mogadishu wasn't permissive for CW3 Michael Durant.
I concur on Treetop's video beheading as a huge potential cost of less survivable manned air platforms. I sort of hand-wave that into "diminished achievement of national objectives" but thank you for making an important point.
I concur on Treetop's video beheading as a huge potential cost of less survivable manned air platforms. I sort of hand-wave that into "diminished achievement of national objectives" but thank you for making an important point.