Air Force Mulls Low-Cost Fighter Experiment

[Flash]

With the proliferation and reduced cost of black market/ gray market MANPADS, I'm not sure where "permissive airspace" exists. Syria sure hasn't been permissive for Russian fixed and rotary wing aircraft. Mogadishu in '93 wasn't permissive for CW3 Michael Durant.

We ain't the Russians and we aren't flying Blackhawks 150ft over downtown, the way we operate makes it permissive to us.

 

[Gatordev]

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.

You probably need to just stop talking at this point.

 

[Randy Daytona]

If a few squadrons of these light turboprops were stood up in the Navy and the Marines, any ideas on which communities would be given an opportunity and/or tasked with manning these units?

EDIT: This came out today and forgot to link to it.

The Air Force Needs More Than 300 Light Attack Aircraft—Now.

http://www.realcleardefense.com/art...than_300_light_attack_aircraftnow_110682.html

 

[Treetop Flyer]

If a few squadrons of these light turboprops were stood up in the Navy and the Marines, any ideas on which communities would be given an opportunity and/or tasked with manning these units?

Twice passed captains on continuation of active duty, of course.

 

[zippy]

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?

The A-29 evaluation was complete while the AT-6 was still a pipe dream.

 

[zippy]

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?

A-29 was designed for a COIN/ permissive air environment. First three points are moot because it wasn't designed for use in a contested environment.

4th point... we've failed to achieve "national objectives" against what can be generously considered 2nd and 3rd rate adversaries in Iraq and Afghanistan (Largely due to political will) even though we have 5th Gen platforms available to us now.

The A-29 works in an environment like Iraq and Afghanistan. Tests were already completed under the Imminent Fury program before congressional political will killed it.

 

[nittany03]

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?

Any J5 or N5 shop stupid enough to cut an OPLAN or CONPLAN that involves running a hypothetical COIN-focused platform up the gut of a hypothetical "contested future operating environment" like you describe, without sufficiently mitigating risk to force, would deserve to be fired en masse. Any J3 or N3 shop stupid enough to get said plan, and not call bullshit on the J5/N5, deserves to be fired en masse.

Staffs do try and account for the capes/lims of the assets they're given when planning or executing ops, you know.

 

[xj220]

I think my head just exploded reading your post.

 

[magnetfreezer]

Any J5 or N5 shop stupid enough to cut an OPLAN or CONPLAN that involves running a hypothetical COIN-focused platform up the gut of a hypothetical "contested future operating environment" like you describe, without sufficiently mitigating risk to force, would deserve to be fired en masse. Any J3 or N3 shop stupid enough to get said plan, and not call bullshit on the J5/N5, deserves to be fired en masse.

Staffs do try and account for the capes/lims of the assets they're given when planning or executing ops, you know.

Unfortunately with the NSC/Pentagon directly controlling tactical execution and operational considerations, the 3 and 5 shops may not have any say regardless of how much BS they call.

 

[RobLyman]

Unfortunately with the NSC/Pentagon directly controlling tactical execution and operational considerations, the 3 and 5 shops may not have any say regardless of how much BS they call.

I think you would be surprised how much is left up to lower units, at least in the Army.

 

[Flash]

Unfortunately with the NSC/Pentagon directly controlling tactical execution and operational considerations, the 3 and 5 shops may not have any say regardless of how much BS they call.

Not really the case for most things.

 

[ryan1234]

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.

The AT-6C has much more of a fit into the AF than the A-29. And, as far as I'm aware, the AT-6 is not off the table for what is being purposed now. The AT-6C has an MX-15, uses the A-10 MMC software, and a 1760 bus - all of which the A-29 doesn't have unless something has changed lately.

 

[Flash]

The AT-6C has much more of a fit into the AF than the A-29. And, as far as I'm aware, the AT-6 is not off the table for what is being purposed now. The AT-6C has an MX-15, uses the A-10 MMC software, and a 1760 bus - all of which the A-29 doesn't have unless something has changed lately.

That would likely be because it was built from the ground up to fit the USAF-specific requirement since it didn't exist before the competition whereas the A-29 had been operational for a decade by then. That equipment could almost certainly be fitted on the A-29 but Embraer and Sierra Nevada wisely chose to go with what was working on the A-29 already instead of adding extra time cost needed for integration, the very things that doomed the AT-6 in the competition.