AT-6 excluded from Light Attack Aircraft

[Fog]

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.

Then you're saying there is little integrity in the procurement process or the service bosses who drive it. If the services will not do the right things, then why should anyone expect integrity from the politicians? IOW, the republic is halfway down the shitter and no one can expect better in the future/ Maybe Jihad Johnny knows something we don't. Maybe we deserve whatever we get. Just ideas for possible discussion.

 

[Flash]

Then you're saying there is little integrity in the procurement process or the service bosses who drive it. If the services will not do the right things, then why should anyone expect integrity from the politicians? IOW, the republic is halfway down the shitter and no one can expect better in the future/ Maybe Jihad Johnny knows something we don't. Maybe we deserve whatever we get. Just ideas for possible discussion.

Not quite, after all it isn't the service bosses who pass the budget. I actually think they are looking at the hard reality and realize that they are only going to get so much and it makes sense to buy the most capable and versatile platforms instead of these 'nice to have' toys we won't need in a few years. The A-29/AT-6 are pretty much only good for one thing and after we draw down in Afghanistan they won't be of much use. We kept the OV-10 around after Vietnam but they were quickly retired after we found out in the Gulf War they didn't last long in unfriendly airspace. It would be the same case with the A-29/AT-6, what would be the point then?

 

[Flash]

.........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.

The amount we pay to transport supplies, including gas, into Afghanistan is pretty damn big and not all that secure. Does it make up the difference? I don't know, but it is something you have to factor in.

......Light attack would fill a hole that you can't. I've talked to dudes on the ground about this. They want it.

But there won't be that many them left there by the end of next year.

 

[Treetop Flyer]

Would it have made sense to buy some super t's a decade ago? Sure, if someone would have been willing to admit that we may still be fighting in Afghanistan for another dozen years. Does it make sense to buy them now? Not at all. If the decision was made tomorrow, the first squadron wouldn't be ready until we are already done with OEF. Then as Flash pointed out, what do we do with a bunch of turboprops that are only good for low threat low intensity conflicts?

 

[insanebikerboy]

..they were quickly retired after we found out in the Gulf War they didn't last long in unfriendly airspace. It would be the same case with the A-29/AT-6, what would be the point then?

You do realize that an A-29/AT-6 is a lot faster and more maneuverable (except for hovering) than a helo right? Yet we still put the helos into unfriendly airspace.

Also, I don't buy the surface to air threat. Tell me when we'd go in guns blazing without first neutralizing the hazards to our air assets in the opening moments of the battle/war? As you said, it's not Vietnam.

I'm not advocating getting rid of our jets but it feels like the arguments are against something like this "just because". It fills a role, it's quickly rearm-able at a much shorter airfield than jets need, it's got good loiter time, and it's got a lot of capability. What's the problem with it?

 

[jtmedli]

You do realize that an A-29/AT-6 is a lot faster and more maneuverable (except for hovering) than a helo right? Yet we still put the helos into unfriendly airspace.

Also, I don't buy the surface to air threat. Tell me when we'd go in guns blazing without first neutralizing the hazards to our air assets in the opening moments of the battle/war? As you said, it's not Vietnam.

I'm not advocating getting rid of our jets but it feels like the arguments are against something like this "just because". It fills a role, it's quickly rearm-able at a much shorter airfield than jets need, it's got good loiter time, and it's got a lot of capability. What's the problem with it?

I'm with you. It worked pretty well for the ole' spad. She wasn't fast or sexy, but it was a dump truck and did the trick.

 

[Flash]

You do realize that an A-29/AT-6 is a lot faster and more maneuverable (except for hovering) than a helo right? Yet we still put the helos into unfriendly airspace.

With few exceptions attack helos have only been used on the 'frontline' where the IADS threat is diminished or where there is little in the way of 'sophisticated' air threats. They have two big advantages over a turboweenie though; their ability to operate at very low altitude to avoid many sophisticated threats and that whole hover thing, where they don't need an airfield.

Also, I don't buy the surface to air threat. Tell me when we'd go in guns blazing without first neutralizing the hazards to our air assets in the opening moments of the battle/war? As you said, it's not Vietnam.

Diminished, not neutralized. I guess the OV-10s in Desert Storm or the F-117 in OAF didn't buy it either but they learned the hard way otherwise, both of them were lost well into the conflicts. When the enemy territory below wasn't occupied by friendly troops the threat remained.

I'm not advocating getting rid of our jets but it feels like the arguments are against something like this "just because". It fills a role, it's quickly rearm-able at a much shorter airfield than jets need, it's got good loiter time, and it's got a lot of capability. What's the problem with it?

It isn't survivable in anything but a low-threat environment and built to order for two wars, one is over for us and other is drawing down rapidly (see Treetops post above).

I'm with you. It worked pretty well for the ole' spad. She wasn't fast or sexy, but it was a dump truck and did the trick.

At great cost. The loss rates for the Spad were pretty high, along with everything else in Vietnam, but it lacked the speed to ever be made safe in a high threat environment.

 

[insanebikerboy]

With few exceptions attack helos have only been used on the 'frontline' where the IADS threat is diminished or where there is little in the way of 'sophisticated' air threats. They have two big advantages over a turboweenie though; their ability to operate at very low altitude to avoid many sophisticated threats and that whole hover thing, where they don't need an airfield.

If I remember my primary aero, the turboprop does pretty dang well at low altitudes. Without getting into tactics, flying low doesn't mean your safe from manpads or the like, it's the pilot that mitigates it. This aircraft doesn't have to pick troops up, so hovering is a moot point.

Diminished, not neutralized. I guess the OV-10s in Desert Storm or the F-117 in OAF didn't buy it either but they learned the hard way otherwise, both of them were lost well into the conflicts. When the enemy territory below wasn't occupied by friendly troops the threat remained.

Improved tactics and modern ASE.

It isn't survivable in anything but a low-threat environment and built to order for two wars, one is over for us and other is drawing down rapidly (see Treetops post above).

Well, the F-22 has obviously contributed a lot to the previous and current war, yet we spent a shit ton on it.

One of the most popular aircraft for dudes on the ground in conflicts today is the A-10. As far as I can tell, powers that be hate that one too but it's still here. I suppose this new aircraft falls into that category, just not "sexy" enough.

 

[Birdog8585]

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..

We had literally that entire list of flavors you just listed in a stack during a few missions in OEF and add a Harvest Hawk, B-1 for a SOF, and a EA-6B for buzzer - it was a 'MERICA V-diagram to say the least. I think you could have replaced most of the overlapping assets with a section of Super-Ts (hell split a division) and covered all of the requirements just fine.

But I will say, nothing puts my mind more at ease than while on short final I give a P.O.O. callout and its almost immediate that I hear "callsign XX tipping in" and watch GAU tracers stich my peripheral from the skids in the overhead - saved my ass many a time you guys rock - 'MERICA!

 

[Hotdogs]

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.

Fair enough, I just think that after you add a reasonable sensor, BriteStar Block II and current ASE gear, along with some sort of Hellfire capability, that whole cost benefit thing is going right out the window. Plus whatever the gold plated good idea fairies decide to throw on it.

 

[MAKE VAPES]

This may have been mentioned, but what OPLAN requires this platform (don't answer that here, just think about it)? While the Aerostats in Afghanistan are pretty effective, and the AT-6 would be a great platform for this waning stability ops fight, don't we need to procure forward for the next war?

On the other hand, we have been pretty crappy at predicting the future, so a mixed bag may be the right thing... who'd a thunk the A-10 would survive as it has?

I'm of the opinion that the platform doesn't matter much anymore (except for doing a really neat-o airshow demo)... cheap, low operational cost hardpoints matter... a million Cessnas with AIM-9X would be unstoppable?! Deploy the hunter-killer drone threadjack.

 

[bert]

The turd in the punchbowl of this whole discussion is the UAS vs. Manned Aircraft discussion. When you look at the proportion of the cost of a vehicle that goes in to sustaining the meat puppets (cockpit and safety infrastructure, training, etc) it gets harder to support. We are still building manned aircraft because of a combination of comfort level, technical maturity, and the fact the military aviation is dominated by pilots in the senior decision making ranks (duh). Two of those factors are changing already, and the third will also as the flag ranks begin to get filled by people familiar with both UAS and who never knew the cold war paradigm of aircraft acquisition.

 

[C420sailor]

A light attack turboprop would be great for 5th fleet. For 7th fleet? Not so much.

 

[Fog]

Not quite, after all it isn't the service bosses who pass the budget. I actually think they are looking at the hard reality and realize that they are only going to get so much and it makes sense to buy the most capable and versatile platforms instead of these 'nice to have' toys we won't need in a few years. The A-29/AT-6 are pretty much only good for one thing and after we draw down in Afghanistan they won't be of much use. We kept the OV-10 around after Vietnam but they were quickly retired after we found out in the Gulf War they didn't last long in unfriendly airspace. It would be the same case with the A-29/AT-6, what would be the point then?

The nice things about the Super T and Light attack a/c in general are that (a) they're cheap (relatively), & an off-the-shelf expense w/ no R&D cost involved, (b) unless terrorism in the Mideast goes completely away, there will continue to be a need, and (c) if our need for them should go away, we have dozens of allies & friends around the world who could take them off our hands for their own use. Latin America, Africa & SE Asia immediately come to mind. JMHO.

 

[pilot_man]

The amount we pay to transport supplies, including gas, into Afghanistan is pretty damn big and not all that secure. Does it make up the difference? I don't know, but it is something you have to factor in.



But there won't be that many them left there by the end of next year.

This isn't the last low intensity conflict we will see in the near future. With your logic we should just get rid of everything that isn't being used currently. How many weapons systems should we get rid of since they aren't currently being used in theater? That's basically why you are saying we don't need light attack. Because in a couple of years we won't be conducting OEF missions. They are all tools in our toolbox. There is a hole in our capabilities and light attack fills that hole. No, these things aren't needed for op plans, but they fill a gap. I can think of a couple of uses of light attack even in 7th fleet. The southern end of the PI immediately comes to mind.

I guarantee the amount of money we pay to transport stuff in theater is way more cost effective on a truck or cargo plane vice the short wings of a Navy fighter. One that requires a CVN to go back to at the end of the day as well.
In the last 20 something years we have seen two wars and plenty of other opportunities for light attack A/C to be used. If the next conflict is a big one, then maybe there isn't a use for light attack. But then again there probably won't be a use for helos either at that point. But, what do I know. I'm just a FAG.