A-X all over again - USAF pushes for A-10 replacement

[jsport]

only would stay expendable is great but performance of pure military design would be good start.

JAGM like MEADS took too much to get here. but unlike MEADS JAGM may well be a costly obsolescence. not a Raytheon salesman but their patents have something even more important than the likely easily retrofitable technology you speak of. It is great you can get to the target but if can't get it done when you get there, well. More importantly can you train militia's to carry and fire JAGM. The Russians have never lost sight of the ubiquitous importance of tube launch.

 

[Wembley]

uaV : 1-2 toy unarmed tired garbage (boondoggle)

The 'toy' UAV may well be something armed like a Switchblade which I gather has been performing well. Finding and knocking out point targets from several miles away with minimal collateral damage is a useful capability.

As LMAMS tools up, small lethal UAVs are getting better fast --and as the Chinese CL-901 gets going, much cheaper...

 

[yasotay]

Army will never do CAS. That is the USAF's mission. Army aviation will do hasty attacks though.

The United States Air Force doing Close Air Support (CAS) and the United States Army doing Close Combat Attack (CCA)?

Close Combat Attack is an obsolete term now. Hasty or deliberate attack are now the means by which Army aviation prosecutes targets. Many beers are needed to fully explain the significance.

Unless it changed in the last few months, CCA is defined as "hasty or deliberate attack" and is still the term and concept used in official Army doctrine.

Effective as of the April 2016 version of FM3.04 Army Aviation, the term Close Combat Attack (CCA) is no longer used in the Army lexicon.

 

[jsport]

uaV : 1-2 toy unarmed tired garbage (boondoggle)

The 'toy' UAV may well be something armed like a Switchblade which I gather has been performing well. Finding and knocking out point targets from several miles away with minimal collateral damage is a useful capability.

As LMAMS tools up, small lethal UAVs are getting better fast --and as the Chinese CL-901 gets going, much cheaper...

well aware
comment stands

 

[marauder2048]

Effective as of the April 2016 version of FM3.04 Army Aviation, the term Close Combat Attack (CCA) is no longer used in the Army lexicon.

Thanks for the update; the beers required for explanation are on me.

 

[marauder2048]

only would stay expendable is great but performance of pure military design would be good start.

JAGM like MEADS took too much to get here. but unlike MEADS JAGM may well be a costly obsolescence. not a Raytheon salesman but their patents have something even more important than the likely easily retrofitable technology you speak of. It is great you can get to the target but if can't get it done when you get there, well.

Considering the large differences in available volume and allowable weight, you're far more likely to see tandem MEFP retrofitted to JAGM than all of JAGM's stuff retrofitted to TOW.
Not to mention a range boost in forthcoming increments.

More importantly can you train militia's to carry and fire JAGM. The Russians have never lost sight of the ubiquitous importance of tube launch.

The Russians also never developed and deployed a soft-launch, man-portable, F&F ATGM;.
Much easier to train militia to carry and fire Javelin/MMP/Spike etc since they won't get distracted by the missile in flight
which is a common source of aim wander (and consequently misses) for radar/beam/wire riders.

 

[jsport]

F&F is now a given.
novel approaches will be needed to defeat tanks w/ ever more capable APS combined w/ SitAwar plus their own defeat technologies w/ ever increasing range afforded to them by three classes of UAS.

There is nothing at all novel about the in-service missiles if anything they are severe compromises. There is barely anything Howard Hughes didn't know about before he died. Just look at the patents. Same old story PMs are still swallowing the same old crap the contractors throw over the transom because they want to work for the contractor. (Javelin.. surely you jest.) There should be guided Viper LAW by now.

It would seem material and and electronics advances science would energize the USG to hold makers more accountable to art of the possible..of course the USG would have to assume more risk than buy the Crap off the Shelf (CoTs) they have been buying--and care more about the troops than their yard.

 

[jsport]

F&F is now a given.
novel approaches will be needed to defeat tanks w/ ever more capable APS combined w/ SitAwar plus their own defeat technologies w/ ever increasing range afforded to them by three classes of UAS.

There is nothing at all novel about the in-service missiles if anything they are severe compromises. There is barely anything Howard Hughes didn't know about before he died. Just look at the patents. Same old story PMs are still swallowing the same old crap the contractors throw over the transom because they want to work for the contractor. (Javelin.. surely you jest.) There should be guided Viper LAW by now.

It would seem material and and electronics advances science would energize the USG to hold makers more accountable to art of the possible..of course the USG would have to assume more risk than buy the Crap off the Shelf (CoTs) they have been buying--and care more about the troops than their yard.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FGR-17_Viper

 

[marauder2048]

http://www.scorpionjet.com/scorpion-jet-successfully-completes-first-weapons-capability-exercise/

 

[FighterJock]

http://www.scorpionjet.com/scorpion-jet-successfully-completes-first-weapons-capability-exercise/

Good find marauder2048. I have just noticed in the picture the Scorpion has just fired a live HELLFIRE missile. Is this unusual for a first launch?

 

[bobbymike]

http://aviationweek.com/defense/usaf-depots-work-keep-10s-flying-indefinitely

 

[bobbymike]

https://www.airforcetimes.com/articles/the-ghostrider-the-most-heavily-armed-gunship-ever-will-send-enemies-running

 

[Grey Havoc]

http://www.tboverse.us/HPCAFORUM/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=20431

As per MikeD over there however:

Take the news with a healthy grain of salt, gents, as there's a good chance it may be smoke and mirrors. The depot at Hill is and has been behind on its maintenance line for the Hog with regards to maintenance at their level, due to the cuts that have been going on the past few years with supply chain and the like. Cuts that were done in the so-called "back door divestment" manner that went against what congress was mandating, rightly or wrongly. Things such as new wings/wing boxes, and the like, have been getting contracts unfunded or cancelled. Right now, of the 283 airframes in operational inventory, there's 173 planes with new wings, and 110 with old wing sets. As of now, there's no contract to re-wing those 110 with new wing sets. Apparently, there is about a 3 year timeframe from the time a contract is awarded, to when new wings will come off the production line. Coincidentally, these planes with the old wings will time-out from flying hours and end up grounded.....in just about 3 years. Congress has directed that there will be no retiring or otherwise intentional fleet reduction of the A-10, however a jet being grounded due to normal time-out, isn't considered to be an intentional reduction as defined by Congress. Therefore, it would appear to the AF that they have no requirement to put money towards new wing sets, since there's no intentional retirements going on, in the letter of the law. And as the airframes dwindle, especially by about 40% or so, the cost to maintain the rest of the fleet will rise. As that fleet also gets more and more hours placed upon them.

In the boneyard, early-converted A-10C models are already entered into the Type 3000/4000 storage, that being planes being scrapped for parts. The earlier 1975-77 A-model A-10s retired immediately post-Desert Storm, are nearly gone (few Euro-1 green Hogs left at the boneyard). And many of these were sent to the boneyard mostly complete with parts that are now unable to be acquired through the supply chain, and must be pulled from boneyard airframes.

While the news of the depot "reopening" (when it was never approved to be closed....again, rightly or wrongly), may not be much more than a nice soundbite.

 

[bobbymike]

https://www.airforcetimes.com/articles/new-office-tests-light-attack-aircraft-other-new-technologies-for-future-air-force

 

[Flyaway]

Scorpion is one of several aircraft the USAF will examine during an experiment slated for this spring that will consider low-cost fighter options, USAF chief Gen David Goldfein told an audience at a Washington think tank 18 January. The experiment is not a competition and the service has not issued a request for information, Goldfein adds.

“Right now we’re running an experiment where we go out to industry and say what do you have that’s commercial off the shelf, low cost that can perform this mission,” he says. “We’re going to do this experiment and see what’s out there, and I’m expecting many of the companies to come forward.”

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/air-force-mulls-low-end-fighter-experiment-433299/

 

[bobbymike]

http://breakingdefense.com/2017/01/mccains-300-low-end-fighters-a-great-idea-csaf-gen-goldfein/

 

[kcran567]

I don't see how a Super Tucano, Bronco, or even Scorpion would be a good A-10 replacement. Why not just upgrade the A-10 avionics or build a real successor to it.

 

[NeilChapman]

I don't see how a Super Tucano, Bronco, or even Scorpion would be a good A-10 replacement. Why not just upgrade the A-10 avionics or build a real successor to it.

IIRC - The USAF wanted to get rid of A-10's because the weren't going to have the numbers of maintainers (and budget) to dedicate to the platform as the 35's came on-line.
- That premise may change w/PEOTUS and SECDEF-D as Mattis has said he wants to focus on readiness.

I decided to read this thread (again) from the beginning. There is quite a disparity of opinions about the mission, how those missions are best served based on several different perceived threats. Having just finished the four part article re: the Air Superiority 2030 Flight Plan my take on the A-10 has changed.

The article suggests that continuous development (block upgrades) to open architecture platforms is critical to success post 2030. The ability to rapidly change to threat environments is what I took away from it. Building off of parallel development. "A bomb truck with guns", the Ghostrider is an excellent (but large) platform.

With that in mind, instead of an low-end fighter, how about the Ghostriders little brother. A smaller "bomb truck with guns". Perhaps built around the GAU-23/A used in Ghostriders?

Is that a larger version of the A-10 with better range/loiter or something like the AC-27J? Don't know. But if you need a fast-mover, perhaps you send an F-35.

But I do like the idea of re-imagining the A-10 in this manner.

 

[Airplane]

http://breakingdefense.com/2017/01/mccains-300-low-end-fighters-a-great-idea-csaf-gen-goldfein/

McCain is nuts. A scorpion would get slaughtered in a modern battlefield. It can't take the abuse, for one. Its a one hit wonder. Hit it oone and the pilot will wonder what happened. How will it survive manpads? No. The 35 is the date we brung to the dance and she's the one we gotta dance with. At least it flies high enough and is LO enough to be survivable, not to mention sensors.

If the USAF gets a dedicate CAS platform, the plane that makes the most sense is a 35B or a fixed wing 35C.

 

[Flyaway]

http://breakingdefense.com/2017/01/mccains-300-low-end-fighters-a-great-idea-csaf-gen-goldfein/

McCain is nuts. A scorpion would get slaughtered in a modern battlefield. It can't take the abuse, for one. Its a one hit wonder. Hit it oone and the pilot will wonder what happened. How will it survive manpads? No. The 35 is the date we brung to the dance and she's the one we gotta dance with. At least it flies high enough and is LO enough to be survivable, not to mention sensors.

If the USAF gets a dedicate CAS platform, the plane that makes the most sense is a 35B or a fixed wing 35C.

It's not intended to operate against peer opponents.

 

[Dragon029]

I don't see how a Super Tucano, Bronco, or even Scorpion would be a good A-10 replacement. Why not just upgrade the A-10 avionics or build a real successor to it.

Is this not part of the OA-X program?

It was stated last year or maybe in late 2015 (it was just before CSAF Welsh retired) that the new plan was to procure 2 new types of aircraft:

OA-X would be COTS/MOTS like the Super Tucano, and (as the name suggests) work as a COIN and FAC aircraft.

A-X or "A-X2" would be a 'true' A-10 replacement. What it'd be is up in the air, but it was being suggested as a UCAV that builds upon the PCAS program; a "Coke machine in the sky" (Gen. Welsh) that 'dispenses whatever flavour of CAS is desired.'

 

[Airplane]

http://breakingdefense.com/2017/01/mccains-300-low-end-fighters-a-great-idea-csaf-gen-goldfein/

McCain is nuts. A scorpion would get slaughtered in a modern battlefield. It can't take the abuse, for one. Its a one hit wonder. Hit it oone and the pilot will wonder what happened. How will it survive manpads? No. The 35 is the date we brung to the dance and she's the one we gotta dance with. At least it flies high enough and is LO enough to be survivable, not to mention sensors.

If the USAF gets a dedicate CAS platform, the plane that makes the most sense is a 35B or a fixed wing 35C.

It's not intended to operate against peer opponents.

Unless it's going to be used against Belize, then it may make sense. But of all the trouble spots around the globe where it could/might/maybe used, it's a hostile battlefield. A Scorpian aircraft.... no thank you.

 

[yasotay]

http://breakingdefense.com/2017/01/mccains-300-low-end-fighters-a-great-idea-csaf-gen-goldfein/

McCain is nuts. A scorpion would get slaughtered in a modern battlefield. It can't take the abuse, for one. Its a one hit wonder. Hit it oone and the pilot will wonder what happened. How will it survive manpads? No. The 35 is the date we brung to the dance and she's the one we gotta dance with. At least it flies high enough and is LO enough to be survivable, not to mention sensors.

If the USAF gets a dedicate CAS platform, the plane that makes the most sense is a 35B or a fixed wing 35C.

It's not intended to operate against peer opponents.

Unless it's going to be used against Belize, then it may make sense. But of all the trouble spots around the globe where it could/might/maybe used, it's a hostile battlefield. A Scorpian aircraft.... no thank you.

If you think that people have not been shooting missiles at airplanes and helicopters for the last fifteen years you would be mistaken. You only hear about it when they are successful.

 

[Airplane]

http://breakingdefense.com/2017/01/mccains-300-low-end-fighters-a-great-idea-csaf-gen-goldfein/

McCain is nuts. A scorpion would get slaughtered in a modern battlefield. It can't take the abuse, for one. Its a one hit wonder. Hit it oone and the pilot will wonder what happened. How will it survive manpads? No. The 35 is the date we brung to the dance and she's the one we gotta dance with. At least it flies high enough and is LO enough to be survivable, not to mention sensors.

If the USAF gets a dedicate CAS platform, the plane that makes the most sense is a 35B or a fixed wing 35C.

It's not intended to operate against peer opponents.

Unless it's going to be used against Belize, then it may make sense. But of all the trouble spots around the globe where it could/might/maybe used, it's a hostile battlefield. A Scorpian aircraft.... no thank you.

If you think that people have not been shooting missiles at airplanes and helicopters for the last fifteen years you would be mistaken. You only hear about it when they are successful.

Yes, I know - I was shot at in my former life in the 90s. I also know you are incorrect in your statement that you only hear when they are successful. You hear about equipment and life losses.... not hits. Hits don't make the news at 6:00. I also know the A-10 and Apache can and have taken ground fire and made it back to be repaired and fly again. Stuff like the Scorpian, like I said, is a one hit wonder. It get's hit once and you wonder where it went down. If I was offered a chance to fly a Scoprian'esque plane I would rather fly a desk.

 

[NeilChapman]

Good extended article.

http://www.airspacemag.com/flight-today/03_fm2017-attack-of-the-cropdusters-180961662/

 

[yasotay]

http://breakingdefense.com/2017/01/mccains-300-low-end-fighters-a-great-idea-csaf-gen-goldfein/

McCain is nuts. A scorpion would get slaughtered in a modern battlefield. It can't take the abuse, for one. Its a one hit wonder. Hit it oone and the pilot will wonder what happened. How will it survive manpads? No. The 35 is the date we brung to the dance and she's the one we gotta dance with. At least it flies high enough and is LO enough to be survivable, not to mention sensors.

If the USAF gets a dedicate CAS platform, the plane that makes the most sense is a 35B or a fixed wing 35C.

It's not intended to operate against peer opponents.

Unless it's going to be used against Belize, then it may make sense. But of all the trouble spots around the globe where it could/might/maybe used, it's a hostile battlefield. A Scorpian aircraft.... no thank you.

If you think that people have not been shooting missiles at airplanes and helicopters for the last fifteen years you would be mistaken. You only hear about it when they are successful.

Yes, I know - I was shot at in my former life in the 90s. I also know you are incorrect in your statement that you only hear when they are successful. You hear about equipment and life losses.... not hits. Hits don't make the news at 6:00. I also know the A-10 and Apache can and have taken ground fire and made it back to be repaired and fly again. Stuff like the Scorpian, like I said, is a one hit wonder. It get's hit once and you wonder where it went down. If I was offered a chance to fly a Scoprian'esque plane I would rather fly a desk.

Well we have "being shot at" in common. For clarification, if "they" are an enemy and they cause "equipment and life losses" to their enemy then I would imagine they consider that "they are successful". Your comment does add granularity to my point. For the record I agree with you that I would much prefer an aircraft as robust and capable as the A-10. I think the challenge that senior military leaders face is that Turcano's, Caravans, and Thrush are being used (to what effect I cannot say) in "lesser" wars. The budget is not going to suddenly get better. The folks with the checkbook are not inclined to open it.

 

[kcran567]

http://breakingdefense.com/2017/01/mccains-300-low-end-fighters-a-great-idea-csaf-gen-goldfein/

McCain is nuts. A scorpion would get slaughtered in a modern battlefield. It can't take the abuse, for one. Its a one hit wonder. Hit it oone and the pilot will wonder what happened. How will it survive manpads? No. The 35 is the date we brung to the dance and she's the one we gotta dance with. At least it flies high enough and is LO enough to be survivable, not to mention sensors.

If the USAF gets a dedicate CAS platform, the plane that makes the most sense is a 35B or a fixed wing 35C.

It's not intended to operate against peer opponents.

Unless it's going to be used against Belize, then it may make sense. But of all the trouble spots around the globe where it could/might/maybe used, it's a hostile battlefield. A Scorpian aircraft.... no thank you.

If you think that people have not been shooting missiles at airplanes and helicopters for the last fifteen years you would be mistaken. You only hear about it when they are successful.

Yes, I know - I was shot at in my former life in the 90s. I also know you are incorrect in your statement that you only hear when they are successful. You hear about equipment and life losses.... not hits. Hits don't make the news at 6:00. I also know the A-10 and Apache can and have taken ground fire and made it back to be repaired and fly again. Stuff like the Scorpian, like I said, is a one hit wonder. It get's hit once and you wonder where it went down. If I was offered a chance to fly a Scoprian'esque plane I would rather fly a desk.

Why don't people who think the Scorpion is so fantastic see this? The only opponent the Scorpion was designed for is one armed only with rifles and small arms hiding in a cave. A peer opponent or one with good air defenses would be trouble for the Scorpion. If you want to go cheap and small why not something fast and stealthy like ATLAS. A mission pod for any mission. 25-30mm gun for a CAS mission, separate bomb/strike mission pod, maybe another one to take out air targets like helicopters...a real adaptable, survivable, configurable low cost solution.

http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/LTV%20Atlas%20Concept.pdf

 

[marauder2048]

Why don't people who think the Scorpion is so fantastic see this? The only opponent the Scorpion was designed for is one armed only with rifles and small arms hiding in a cave. A peer opponent or one with good air defenses would be trouble for the Scorpion. If you want to go cheap and small why not something fast and stealthy like ATLAS. A mission pod for any mission. 25-30mm gun for a CAS mission, separate bomb/strike mission pod, maybe another one to take out air targets like helicopters...a real adaptable, survivable, configurable low cost solution.

http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/LTV%20Atlas%20Concept.pdf

For the sort of radius ATLAS gives you, you might as well just fire GLSDB.

There is a need for a responsive, low CPFH platform for the low intensity fight.

Scorpion gives you radius, payload, endurance, redundancy and reduced
pilot workload. With APKWS II or JAGM it can stay out of MANPADS range.
And it has to rate of climb to get out of most flak traps.

 

[kcran567]

I admit you're right about Scorpion's strengths. Atlas may lack the radius, standoff, payload and range but has lower observability than the Scorpion and ability to get in close like the A-10 had. Scorpion is also a fairly large target. I think there is a place for an Atlas like aircraft even now. Maybe a mixed force of Atlas/Scorpion type would be very effective and low cost way to fill several roles.

 

[marauder2048]

I admit you're right about Scorpion's strengths. Atlas may lack the radius, standoff, payload and range but has lower observability than the Scorpion and ability to get in close like the A-10 had. Scorpion is also a fairly large target. I think there is a place for an Atlas like aircraft even now. Maybe a mixed force of Atlas/Scorpion type would be very effective and low cost way to fill several roles.

While the (US) experience with lightweight fast jets operating from austere forward bases is that their sortie generation rate declines rapidly it
may not matter for an initial, intense intervention against a high-end foe. So, I agree that there's a place for both.

 

[Airplane]

I admit you're right about Scorpion's strengths. Atlas may lack the radius, standoff, payload and range but has lower observability than the Scorpion and ability to get in close like the A-10 had. Scorpion is also a fairly large target. I think there is a place for an Atlas like aircraft even now. Maybe a mixed force of Atlas/Scorpion type would be very effective and low cost way to fill several roles.

While the (US) experience with lightweight fast jets operating from austere forward bases is that their sortie generation rate declines rapidly it
may not matter for an initial, intense intervention against a high-end foe. So, I agree that there's a place for both.

If you're all so very deadest on wasting a billion dollars to kill bad guys armed with rifles because after all 'The F-35 can't soil it's hands on that mission," then just weaponize the T-X. Issue solved.

But this a total waste of dollars when the US has an aircraft that can do the mission, and if needed to do so, can keep other more advanced potential adversaries in bordering nations in check by have the F-35 in the area killing the bad guys instead. The F-35 can simply be re-armed for A2A. The Scoprian and it's peers cannot survive 5 minutes if a bordering state with real fighters or forward based Russians wanted to do something about it. Yes, the A-X as envisioned is a WASTE of money that could be spent on an AMRAAM replacement, a C-17 replacement (since the US decided to end production there are no cargo planes being built anymore), more funds for the new tanker. The list goes on, on where the money could be used bigley.

 

[AeroFranz]

the "business case" for a varied fleet is that it might cost less to have a high/low mix to use according to the situation.

I'm obviously simplifying here, but it's like having a an electric car for your daily commute and a larger gas car for the occasional longer trip.
If you were to have the electric car only, you wouldn't be able to perform the occasional long trip "mission". If you have the big gasoline car only, your operating costs are very elevated.
Of course you now have two different replacement parts, maintenance procedures, insurance, etc., So you have to run the numbers and gaze in the crystal ball.

Whether a high/low mix makes sense depends on unpredictable things like "how many confrontations with near-peers will i get into" and somewhat more tractable metrics like CPFH, engineering NRE, gas $$, training, etc. But the point is, unless you can run those numbers, you can't say it doesn't make sense.
I could come up with a scenario where in the next thirty years there are only low-level skirmishes and they're being flown by F-35s plinking bombs from straight and level, something a Cessna Caravan could do (I'm exaggerating of course).

 

[NeilChapman]

the "business case" for a varied fleet is that it might cost less to have a high/low mix to use according to the situation.

I'm obviously simplifying here, but it's like having a an electric car for your daily commute and a larger gas car for the occasional longer trip.
If you were to have the electric car only, you wouldn't be able to perform the occasional long trip "mission". If you have the big gasoline car only, your operating costs are very elevated.
Of course you now have two different replacement parts, maintenance procedures, insurance, etc., So you have to run the numbers and gaze in the crystal ball.

Whether a high/low mix makes sense depends on unpredictable things like "how many confrontations with near-peers will i get into" and somewhat more tractable metrics like CPFH, engineering NRE, gas $$, training, etc. But the point is, unless you can run those numbers, you can't say it doesn't make sense.
I could come up with a scenario where in the next thirty years there are only low-level skirmishes and they're being flown by F-35s plinking bombs from straight and level, something a Cessna Caravan could do (I'm exaggerating of course).

I'm all for a high/low mix. It would be nice if they looked around and dual-purposed an airframe that would already be in-theater. Adding forward-based logistical support for "another" airframe is a significant complication that isn't necessary.

This doesn't have to be an "Air Force" only solution. Although the AFSOC has been working on upgrades for their CV-22's for the last few years that are in the pipeline already (~Q3/21). These upgrades can be extended to the Marine Corp and Navy.
http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/archive/2016/May/Pages/CV22OspreysGetExtraUpgradesforSpecialOperations.aspx
http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2015SOFIC/RW_SilentKnightRadar.pdf

The MV-22 is a possibility. The Marines are all-in on this airframe. Maybe it's time to look at a block upgrade of avionics, engines and armor for their fleet. They will also be backed up with 35B's.

Why not look at the the UH-60 replacement programs?

The V-280 or the SB-1 look like suitable platforms. Adding mission based weapon systems is not out of the question.

Still think this needs be looked at as a gun/bomb/missile truck. The AFSOC CV-22 upgrades are in the pipeline already. From the above article, "The Naval Surface Warfare Center Dahlgren Division in Virginia is conducting a study to determine the optimal weapon for the V-22 and where that weapon should be placed in order to maximize coverage of the aircraft. The study, which began in 2015, is expected to continue through 2018. It will focus on guns and precision-guided munitions, according to Naval Air Systems Command."
http://www.navair.navy.mil/index.cfm?fuseaction=home.display&key=56424953-9562-4734-B373-AAB87ADAB56F

From http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/the-us-marines-might-have-found-secret-weapon-it-had-all-18747
"NSWC (Naval Surface Warfare Center) Dahlgren explored the use of forward firing rockets, missiles, fixed guns, a chin mounted gun, and also looked at the use of a 30MM gun along with gravity drop rockets and guided bombs deployed from the back of the V-22. The study that is being conducted will help define the requirements and ultimately inform a Marine Corps decision with regards to armament of the MV-22B Osprey."

This is not a complicated problem that needs a 100% solution. Continue support of the A-10. Upgrade it as necessary. Marine Corp already needs upgrades of their MV-22B fleet. They're availability for B's is too low (~75%) today. Integrate the AFSOC systems, engine upgrades (from C models) and weapons into the B upgrade process. Ensure these capabilities are included for future block upgrade road map for UH-60 replacement program.

Don't acquire a new airframe when there are existing airframes that require upgrades today to boost combat readiness rates.
Don't acquire a new airframe when there are existing airframes that have upgrades in the pipeline that just need funding.
Don't acquire a new airframe when there are existing airframes that already have in-theater logistical support plans.
Don't acquire a new airframe when these upgraded airframes will provide the capability required.

Just my 2¢.

N

EDIT - Added the picture of the MV-22 firing a hydra rocket. Picture from http://defense-update.com/20160320_apkws-2.html

 

[kagemusha]

Is The USAF Finally Serious About Fielding A Light Air Support Aircraft?

http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/7335/is-the-usaf-finally-serious-about-fielding-a-light-air-support-aircraft

 

[TomS]

Is The USAF Finally Serious About Fielding A Light Air Support Aircraft?

http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/7335/is-the-usaf-finally-serious-about-fielding-a-light-air-support-aircraft

Rule of thumb: If a news article's headline is a question, the answer is almost always "No."

 

[Dragon029]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridge's_law_of_headlines

 

[NeilChapman]

Is The USAF Finally Serious About Fielding A Light Air Support Aircraft?

http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/7335/is-the-usaf-finally-serious-about-fielding-a-light-air-support-aircraft

Pretty much every article that expounds upon the need for a light tactical aircraft denotes the lag in F-35 production as a reason for its requirement. This makes no sense to me.

Produce more F-35's. The capability exists. The production, lowers the cost. Just do it.

The other argument is is the lack of tactical support. To which I say, create more tactical support - with airframes in theater already. I just don't understand the logic behind an additional tactical capability that requires more logistical support. Why add another airframe when it's existence creates a burden on a existing logistical train?

Compounding the point, the existing tactical support has not been adequately maintained.

This is the same case being made by the Navy. "Fix the availability of the 279 ships we have today before you purchase new ships."

 

[marauder2048]

There's likely another element at work here: recruitment and retention.

A light attack aircraft represents a still desirable assignment to those pilots
who fail elimination checks for the F-series.

Often, these pilots tend to be in the top half of their T-6 II class but (for a variety of reasons) at
the bottom half of their T-38 (T-X) class. So there's quality if latent material there.

Previously, the consolation prize would be transports or RPAs and in all likelihood early
departure from the service; the light attack aircraft offers a desirable, alternative career path
with a marketable, transferrable skill set.

 

[NeilChapman]

There's likely another element at work here: recruitment and retention.

A light attack aircraft represents a still desirable assignment to those pilots
who fail elimination checks for the F-series.

Often, these pilots tend to be in the top half of their T-6 II class but (for a variety of reasons) at
the bottom half of their T-38 (T-X) class. So there's quality if latent material there.

Previously, the consolation prize would be transports or RPAs and in all likelihood early
departure from the service; the light attack aircraft offers a desirable, alternative career path
with a marketable, transferrable skill set.

I'm not sure I'm following. The USAF/USN is losing pilots for lack of flight time and career growth due to the reduction in maintenance dollars, readiness dollars, airframes and squadrons. I'm all for purchasing qty 1200 (vs 300) T-X for >USD10Million and let them fly as much as they are able. Buy an existing airframe, spin up production to 120+ per year and get them flying.

F-35 is taking the place of Air Force F-16's and, perhaps A-10's and maybe F-15's - over 1700 jets. The F-35 is designed to be easier to fly and provide sensor fusion allowing more effort towards pilots tactical mission. Presumably, with these systems enhancements, you're opening the MOS to more pilots.

F-16 and F-15's are very near the end of their services lives. It's imperative to expedite F-35 production to 200+ per year and ensure there are airframes for pilots to be flying.

I don't see adding a new CAS airframe with the expectation that it will help in retention. I'm hoping SECDEF steps in and nixes this, especially when other CAS/Assault Support platforms need upgrades - today.

 

[marauder2048]

Easy-to-fly doesn't mean that employing the aircraft in the fight isn't vastly more demanding from a cognitive perspective.

The portion of the applicant pool that possesses the cognitive and proprioceptive aptitude to fight and win in
the F-35 and F-22 is likely going to be smaller than for previous platforms but you still want the pool to be as large possible.

That means having a viable career path if you don't make the first cut.

From "Improving The UPT Student Follow-on Assignment Selection Process" by Maj. Messer USAF.