It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Air Force considers LAA experiment

page: 1
4
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 18 2017 @ 02:37 PM
link   
The Air Force announced that they are planning an experiment this spring to develop a Light Attack Aircraft. They plan to go to multiple companies looking at COTS technology, and low cost platform ideas. Those companies will include Textron, Beechcraft, and Embraer.

John McCain recommended in a white paper that the Air Force develop a High/Low mix of forces going forward, and included buying 200 aircraft by 2022, as well as continuing with the A-10 sustainment. That would give them a force to perform CAS and COIN operations in permissive environments, such as Afghanistan.

www.flightglobal.com...




posted on Jan, 18 2017 @ 02:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
The Air Force announced that they are planning an experiment this spring to develop a Light Attack Aircraft. They plan to go to multiple companies looking at COTS technology, and low cost platform ideas. Those companies will include Textron, Beechcraft, and Embraer.

John McCain recommended in a white paper that the Air Force develop a High/Low mix of forces going forward, and included buying 200 aircraft by 2022, as well as continuing with the A-10 sustainment. That would give them a force to perform CAS and COIN operations in permissive environments, such as Afghanistan.

www.flightglobal.com...


200 aircraft by 2022 would almost have to be a already built aircraft wouldn't it? 4-5 years for a clean sheet seems a bit short.



posted on Jan, 18 2017 @ 02:55 PM
link   
a reply to: Pyle

They're looking almost exclusively at off the shelf technology. You could do a clean sheet, if you had something already well along in the process using strictly off the shelf tech, like the F-117 did, but it will almost certainly be an existing aircraft. The most likely candidates are the AT-6, A-29, or Scorpion.
edit on 1/18/2017 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 18 2017 @ 02:57 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

I STILL think the USAF should wash it's hands of those missions and leave them to the Army.
They should regroup for space.
REBUDGETING all of course.



posted on Jan, 18 2017 @ 03:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Pyle

They're looking almost exclusively at off the shelf technology. You could do a clean sheet, if you had something already well along in the process using strictly off the shelf tech, like the F-117 did, but it will almost certainly be an existing aircraft. The most likely candidates are the AT-6, A-29, or Scorpion.



Good, there are a few, as you mentioned, already built and flying that do the job they are asking.

I bet they go for the one that looks most like a fighter jet, freaking fighter mafia.



posted on Jan, 18 2017 @ 03:03 PM
link   
a reply to: Pyle

I wouldn't be surprised to see Scorpion have the inside track. The AF did some flight certification work with it, and they've done some advanced weapons work with it.



posted on Jan, 18 2017 @ 03:07 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

What ever happened to Stavatti Aerospace?
Their MACHETE SM-27T looks PERFECT.



posted on Jan, 18 2017 @ 03:13 PM
link   
If a kid can put a 9mm handgun on a drone and keep it steady, then we have the off the shelf technology to GREATLY reduce costs, it's with using our unmanned aircraft more intelligently.

But I suspect there are more laws and such standing in the way, it's not like drones are next gen tech, it's already here and very viable.

When you don't have a manned craft, you can do much more with it.

I mean humans have to worry about Gs but move the human out of the craft and into a remote position and just seems you'd have so much more at your disposal, so why do we focus so much on manned craft in this age?



posted on Jan, 18 2017 @ 03:19 PM
link   
a reply to: cavtrooper7

I'm pretty sure it never actually flew.



posted on Jan, 18 2017 @ 03:22 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

I WONDERED if the wings were off.



posted on Jan, 18 2017 @ 05:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Pyle

They're looking almost exclusively at off the shelf technology. You could do a clean sheet, if you had something already well along in the process using strictly off the shelf tech, like the F-117 did, but it will almost certainly be an existing aircraft. The most likely candidates are the AT-6, A-29, or Scorpion.


They should also consider the TBM 700 series and the Pilatus PC-12.



posted on Jan, 18 2017 @ 05:37 PM
link   
Would this be more cost effective (considering capability) than keeping 200 A-10C flying?

What happened to making the A-10 into a drone? I saw the RFQ for it.



posted on Jan, 18 2017 @ 09:58 PM
link   
a reply to: F4guy

Don't you mean PC-9?



posted on Jan, 19 2017 @ 05:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: aholic
a reply to: F4guy

Don't you mean PC-9?


No, the 9 is 1980s technology and is payload restricted. The -12 can carry 2000 pounds more bombs and bullets. The -21 might even be better. Convert from tandem to single cockpit, add a few hardpoints and it's ready to go.



posted on Jan, 19 2017 @ 12:56 PM
link   
And this is why this is a good idea.

B-2s attack Isis camp in Libya

There is no reason for B-2s to fly from Whiteman to attack camps where there is zero credible surface to air threat. We're using sledgehammers to crack walnuts and it needs to stop.



posted on Jan, 19 2017 @ 01:15 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

I think you might be crossing streams with regards to this proposed new jet and a mission like this. I don't think the AF would buy these new jets to do deep interdiction missions dropping 100(!!!) JDAMs between 2 airplanes total.

All context points to these light attack jets being equipped and fielded to do NTISR and employ when necessary, as a cost cutting and efficiency measure to stop hemorrhaging cash and for future sustainment. The deep interdiction mission set ending with dropping that many munitions wouldn't be in their repertoire because it would take such a large force employment to get the same results.

Plus I see this as a nod to the B-2 community, which hasn't seen any action for a while, and as another "check yourself" strategic showcase to those who may be watching.



posted on Jan, 19 2017 @ 01:20 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Other than training crews.



posted on Jan, 19 2017 @ 01:35 PM
link   
a reply to: mbkennel

For what? Complacency? All this is doing is training them to drop bombs. They could fly to Guam or Korea and back and get the same training.



posted on Jan, 19 2017 @ 01:40 PM
link   
a reply to: justwanttofly

This was two B-2s, that cost over $100k an hour, being used to do something that smaller, far cheaper assets could do. A group of A-29s could have done the same mission for less cost and less wear on the airframes. Yes it would have taken multiple missions, but it still would have been more cost effective.



posted on Jan, 19 2017 @ 04:27 PM
link   
I suspect the reason for the b2's was more of a show of force to other nations, a little sabre rattling to remind red force that the b2 is very much still a credible platform able to mount deep precision surgical strikes

as for the CAS role I am still thinking they need to bring back the broncos another warhorse that is able to perform the milk runs as needed maybe with F15s as a sister in the role for a faster strike when needed ...

dont re-invent the wheel




top topics



 
4
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join