Air Force considers LAA experiment

a reply to: yittak

Why use a ski-ramp carrier? A flat deck carrier could give you 30+ knots of wind over the deck on it's own, not counting natural wind. I've seen E-2s, C-2s and S-3s deck launch with no trouble. Ski-ramps work good with jets, not turboprops.

a reply to: JIMC5499

just a thought about our new queen Elizabeth class carriers , F35's might be total overkill for a lot of missions we will need to fly from them

originally posted by: yittak
Out of curiosity , could a super tucano take off a ski ramp carrier and land on one without a tail hook ?

A really good comparison of the Embraer versus the AT-6 is at awin.aviationweek.com...

a reply to: Zaphod58

But the test necessitated live ordinance. So cost effectively this was an opportune moment.

a reply to: 727Sky

There was a capability that hadn't been proven that they were confirming on this mission. You'll notice that the B-2s used in this raid were the amongst the airframes most recent upgraded in their avionics kit. It's a pretty incredible capability they demonstrated actually.

a reply to: aholic

There are two live fire exercises going on or starting shortly. This is another example of using a very expensive sledgehammer to crack eggs.

a reply to: Zaphod58

I don't disagree, but to play the other side for a moment. The Whiteman boys don't see much action and combat experience is invaluable.

Two, there were a few new systems tested that related to BDA and the new com links used on the bombers that needed a live raid to confirm. Sadly, it was a matter of confirming casualties and the other systems needed to orchestrate this test were already in country. They would have had to been moved to Guam or Diego to test them there, and that would have taken assets away from a live fight. So no could do.

a reply to: aholic

I should also mention this is a system that will be instrumental on the B-21, so testing it now was important to the timeline.

a reply to: aholic

Your first point is what I've been saying. What combat training did they get that they wouldn't in a live fire exercise? The exercise would be better for them, because there would be actual threats for them to avoid. What possible threat to a B-2 is there in Libya that they could justify as training?

I'm usually the first one to say live training and testing is a good idea. But this is getting ridiculous. If you're going to train or test a new system, at least do it somewhere that has something you can pretend is a threat.

a reply to: Zaphod58

I think they did, simulated. But when it came time to link up with the real deal, and the real deal happened to be in Libya at the moment monitoring the camps. So voila.

Invitations for the OA-X experiment are expected to go out tomorrow. They're keeping the requirements purposefully vague to allow the industry to come up with what works.

The only requirements put forward so far are that it has to operate in an austere environment, off a runway that's 6,000 feet long, and burn less than 1500 pounds/hour in fuel.

www.flightglobal.com...

Both Boeing and Lockheed have decided not to offer an aircraft for the OA-X experiment.

a reply to: Zaphod58

After reading this, it occurred to me, they might be able to save a lot of money just by buying up 200 or so Mig 21's; they seem to be everywhere.

I read about them at: russianfighterjets.com...

Problems seem to include the fact that only short people can fit in one and limited range, but.......the range problem could be solved by simply inserting an updated engine? I don't know how many short pilots we have.

a reply to: TonyS

There are a lot of huge problems there though. Beginning with the fact that they'd have to undergo extensive modification to fit our equipment, or we'd have to buy infrastructure and weapons to fit them.

They're also almost all older than the current aircraft in our inventory.

a reply to: Zaphod58

There is that.

So much progress has changed everything.

BTW, I've enjoyed your view points on the need for this type craft and would have to agree it appears that the Textron Scorpion probably has an edge. Nifty looking plane that and the cost savings would be huge!

a reply to: TonyS

I think that a Scorpion is going to be the front runner. The only other major airframer that is left is Gulfstream, and they don't have anything out there even close to fitting this mission, so they'd have to partner with Embraer or someone.

Seems the door has been opened wide for Textron. I'm betting that behind the scenes some of these contracts are predetermined based on the prototypes we dont always see, although obviously not in this particular case. Boeing and LM pulling out seems at first a surprise but if Boeing have been essentially left front runner in the new trainer contract then a bird in the hand is worth more than two in the bush so to speak.

What I would really like to see here is the Scorpion version with the high speed wing they modeled for it. Now THAT would make a great low end light fighter/strike aircraft.

a reply to: thebozeian

Both the T-50A, and Boeing aircraft appear to lose out on fuel burn, and runway requirements for the experiment. Lockheed didn't come out and say that, but they did allude to the T-50A not meeting all the requirements.