Air Force requests funding for low cost fighter experiment

a reply to: D8Tee

I believe that they do.

Maritime and surveillance aircraft.

They also do trains of all sorts.

They feature prominently in my 401K

originally posted by: pteridine

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: pteridine

The Navy refitted the aircraft, but SOCOM performed the original experiment. The continued program will occur under the Air Force.

Is the Air Force responsible for all air support to SOCOM units?

Army sort of has their own for infil, exfil, and close-in support, the 160th SOAR. When the job calls for bombing runs, whoever's SOTACC qualified on the team calls in fire missions from AF or Navy, depending on who's available.

originally posted by: Bedlam

originally posted by: pteridine

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: pteridine

The Navy refitted the aircraft, but SOCOM performed the original experiment. The continued program will occur under the Air Force.

Is the Air Force responsible for all air support to SOCOM units?

Army sort of has their own for infil, exfil, and close-in support, the 160th SOAR. When the job calls for bombing runs, whoever's SOTACC qualified on the team calls in fire missions from AF or Navy, depending on who's available.

I was wondering about this because the Air Force is famous for starting with something simple and relatively cheap and ending up with something complex and expensive. As I remember, they were planning to move away from the ground support mission but I guess turf being what it is, they changed their minds. It seems to make more sense to have those with ground troops do the development. The Army seems to do ok with helos and the Navy/MarCorps has helos and fixed wing experience. It would also make sense to have the new plane carrier capable so it could provide close ground support if an amphibious assault was necessary.
The likely response to my comments will be that we will not ever have amphibious landings again and that the conflicts of the future will be handled by drones and stealth aircraft so a captured port will not really be needed. Of course, I disagree but no ATS discussion will change inter-service rivalries in the Pentagon.

a reply to: pteridine

Developing a joint service aircraft has always turned it into a disaster, with the exception of the F-4. In fact prior to the F-35, the F-4 was pretty much the only one that worked out. The F-111 was supposed to be joint service, and failed for the Navy. Even the F-4 was redesigned pretty extensively for the Air Force, and being strictly land based.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: pteridine

Developing a joint service aircraft has always turned it into a disaster, with the exception of the F-4. In fact prior to the F-35, the F-4 was pretty much the only one that worked out. The F-111 was supposed to be joint service, and failed for the Navy. Even the F-4 was redesigned pretty extensively for the Air Force, and being strictly land based.

F4 wasn't really a joint service development from the beginning. It was a Navy developed aircraft that was so good that the USAF signed on to it and eventually had more built for them than the Navy. Not only was it good, Maniac McNamara wanted a common airframe and that certainly made the USAF like the F4 even more. It did become "the world's largest distributor of MiG parts." I think that the USAF eliminated the shocks, tail hooks, and pilots with big brass ones that land on pitching decks at night in a rainstorm with no peeking allowed, although there are always deck spotters amongst the zoomies. I also vaguely remember the USAF adding a gun which was a smart move. The Navy was mired in a missile phase at the time wherein everything was solved with a missile.

a reply to: pteridine

That's the reason why it worked as well as it did. When they start out with a joint development it usually doesn't end well.

a reply to: Zaphod58

It's ironic to me, as the F-35 is in so many ways the true successor to the F-111 in the first place.

One extremely capable turkey to replace another extremely capable turkey. Poetic.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Yes you are correct there. The great Rafale was designed to be strong enough to land on a carrier to begin with as demonstrated with the A. They the developed the air Force version and beefed it up to the naval version. Any American sailor that I've talked to and has seen the Rafale M in operation has expressed admiration and even an implied superiority in relation to our aircraft. Important to remember that when you operate a lot more of them sometimes the Chevy is better than the Cadillac.

Speaking of low cost air support, an A-29 destined for Afghanistan crashed in a residential area near Moody AFB in Georgia. It impacted a few hundred feet from a home. Both pilots ejected safely and were taken to a local hospital for examination.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
Speaking of low cost air support, an A-29 destined for Afghanistan crashed in a residential area near Moody AFB in Georgia. It impacted a few hundred feet from a home. Both pilots ejected safely and were taken to a local hospital for examination.

Glad the pilots were safe and they didn't hit the house, any idea why they crashed?

a reply to: D8Tee

Not yet. It'll be awhile before solid details come out. They're still recovering wreckage. It'll be two or three days just to get that done.

a reply to: Barnalby

Extremely capable and turkey don't exactly go together.

The F-111 sucked as a fighter, too true. It's near sister FB-111 was good, if not great, as a bomber. Not sure I'd classify it as a turkey...as it turned out to be a pretty darn good platform for not only bombing, but electronic warfare, as well.

The F-35 is, in all its variants, so far beyond turkey as to make your point meaningless. It is, once the bugs are worked out, going to be a fabulous platform.

Would the aircraft that wins the contract to be the next trainer not fit the bill at all? If they're ordering a set amount of trainers and then extra for the low cost fighter would it not bring costs down even more? Plus if it proved a capable low cost fighter would that not open it up to the export market as well?

a reply to: Woody510

Not really. They'd have to be modified to carry weapons, and they're designed to train fast jet pilots, so they'd have most of the limitations they're seeing now with the F-16 and others.

They COULD do it, but the OA-X is looking more for a COIN platform to complement the A-10 rather than a new CAS platform.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Ah right I was thinking if it was a trainer that they'd be able to carry a minimal payload for practice. Makes sense as they'd have to strengthen the wings and maybe lose some performance and altitude to do this specific role?

a reply to: Woody510

They'd have to add fire control systems, external stations, beef up the wings, etc. Yes, they're trainers, but the weapons stuff will be handled after they get to the advanced training and start flying the platform they're training for. These are used for basic jet training.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Thanks for the reply and teaching me something. I really didn't know if they did weapons training in the trainer or not so that's cleared that up.

a reply to: Woody510

This page has a pretty good breakdown of the different phases of pilot training and what they fly for each. They use T-6s now instead of T-37s, but the basics are still there.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Thanks I'll definitely give that a read just had a glimpse now. So the T6 is the equivalent of the Tucano's I see flying here and the T38 the hawk?

a reply to: Woody510

Basically. The T-38s play other roles, such as Red Air, and for U-2 pilots to keep current, but their primary mission would be the equivalent of the Hawk.