marauder2048 said:
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.

Thanks for the stats M.

I'm still not convinced by the argument. You seem to be lumping the F-35 and F-22 pilots into the same pool. One is an air superiority fighter designed in the 1980's the other is an ground attack system designed 20 years later as a direct replacement for the F-16.

The F-22 and F-35 are both 5th gens (sensor/shooters) but isn't that about where the two diverge? The F-35's mission control systems are much less "pilot intensive" than the F-22. The concept of sensor fusion is to enhance the available information to reduce the cognitive and proprioceptive demands on the pilot.

I guess I don't see the F-35 pool as "likely" to be smaller than previous platforms - by design as an F-16 replacement. So by extension, I still see a new A-X platform as pulling resources away from other platforms in-theater that provide the same CAS/Assault Support role.

If there were unlimited funds I wouldn't be making this argument. A new A-X would be great. I just see a better weighted argument for making the required upgrades to platforms that perform this function already.

BTW...I'm on board with life extensions for the A-10 as well as systems enhancements for MV-22's and 60's. Just don't want it to take away from F-35 acquisition increases.
 
http://www.defensenews.com/a10%20retirement%202021

Given the ongoing efforts by the F-35 supporters in the USAF and elsewhere to kill the A-10, I must say that I'm a bit cynical about this supposed about face.

The OA-X program is seemingly still in play by the way.
 
Grey Havoc said:
http://www.defensenews.com/a10%20retirement%202021

Given the ongoing efforts by the F-35 supporters in the USAF and elsewhere to kill the A-10, I must say that I'm a bit cynical about this supposed about face.

The OA-X program is seemingly still in play by the way.

McCain, the SASC chair, won re-election. If retaining the A-10 is the price of securing top-line budget relief from Congress that's a trade
the Air Force is likely to favor.

Goldfein's MQ-9 reference is interesting since SDB II integration on MQ-9 is supposed to begin this year.
 
Oh WTF? Not these jabronis again! They're baaackk!

Stavatti is making noise again in regards to the OA-X requirement. Frankly, the only thing Stavatti cranked out is pretty vaporware worthy of DeviantArt. I don't think anyone is actually gonna take this seriously!

http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/the-machete-the-super-plane-could-replace-the-10-warthog-or-19431
 

Attachments

  • 1-MbtbQf1Zi11SBfUy7dX1HQ.jpeg
    1-MbtbQf1Zi11SBfUy7dX1HQ.jpeg
    483.6 KB · Views: 449
This is what happens when the major contractors stop talking publically about their designs. The amateurs start getting attention because at least they have pretty pictures to put into "news" articles that drive clicks on websites. It's hard to get clicks with an article titled "Raytheon declines to discuss OA-X proposal."
 
TomS said:
This is what happens when the major contractors top talking publically about their designs. The amateurs start getting attention because at least they have pretty pictures to put into "news" articles that drive clicks on websites. It's hard to get clicks with an article titled "Raytheon declines to discuss OA-X proposal."

Good point.
 
XP67_Moonbat said:
Oh WTF? Not these jabronis again! They're baaackk!

Stavatti is making noise again in regards to the OA-X requirement. Frankly, the only thing Stavatti cranked out is pretty vaporware worthy of DeviantArt. I don't think anyone is actually gonna take this seriously!

http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/the-machete-the-super-plane-could-replace-the-10-warthog-or-19431

What!? CAS and no cannon slaved to the helmet? POS.
 
The DoD already has the capabilities it needs for the mission, albeit split across two separate platforms...
For sheer firepower and medium-threat airspace survivability, the A-10 will be impossible to replace in ANY form.
As for low-threat airspace, fuel efficient and low-cost operations, operating in confined airspace, and flying from rough fields close to the front lines, the OV-10 can be brought up to modern precision engagement capabilities with ease. There's already a pair of them upgraded to the G+ configuration that have served over Iraq and Syria with incredible success... For the cost of a new aircraft, you could probably completely overhaul the remaining fleet to near-new status, and add modern avionics and systems at the same time. Problem would be finding enough airframes to field an effective force.
 
It's the logical solution. But the Pentagon will surely find some way to not do it.
 
USAF Expects To Greenlight Light Fighter Study Within Weeks;

http://aviationweek.com/defense/usaf-expects-greenlight-light-fighter-study-within-weeks?NL=AW-05&Issue=AW-05_20170227_AW-05_207&sfvc4enews=42&cl=article_3&utm_rid=CPEN1000002229670&utm_campaign=8848&utm_medium=email&elq2=45fe0867c4aa45ecbd0097e2ba3790bd
 
An affordable, subsonic, light fighter/attack aircraft optimized for COIN with a high-bypass turbofan for range/endurance, armor for survivability and one or more cannons for versatility would make a lot of sense. It will never, ever happen, mind you, but it would make a lot of sense. :p
 
An angle generally missed by the other articles:

Though he has previously referred to the need for a less expensive attack-type aircraft,
Goldfein noted remotely piloted aircraft could also fill the need for close-air support.

"There is no reason not to look at RPAs. We're going to be looking at those too,"
he said, adding that the service will be working with industry to see what is available immediately, can operate in
contested environments and be used by allied nations and coalition partners.


http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/blog/Lists/Posts/Post.aspx?ID=2424
 
US Air Force to hold light attack experiment this summer

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/us-air-force-to-hold-light-attack-experiment-this-s-434798/
 
http://www.businessinsider.com/a-10-attack-craft-iran-us-navy-2017-3
 
Uh-oh, does this mean that the next generation attack aircraft will have to be carrier-rated as well? ;-) In all seriousness, I bet there are some turboprop options that could operate comfortably from a carrier without arrestor gear. Maybe an armored, single-seat Texan II or Super Tucano with a podded version of the Apache's M230 30mm?
 
Yup, I had the Bronco and the Mohawk in the back of my mind when I wrote that. An armored light twin turboprop would make a lot of sense in that role, but I can't think of any in current production that would come close, just singles.
 
"USAF Chief Approves Low-Cost Fighter Demo"
Mar 13, 2017 Lara Seligman | Aerospace Daily & Defense Report

Source:
http://aviationweek.com/awindefense/usaf-chief-approves-low-cost-fighter-demo

U.S. Air Force Chief Gen. David Goldfein on March 8 approved a light-attack fighter flight demonstration to take place at Holloman Air Force Base, New Mexico, this summer. The Air Force expects to issue an invitation to industry to participate in the experiment shortly, according to spokeswoman Ann Stefanek. Goldfein’s signature marks another baby step for the Air Force toward possibly buying 300 off-the-shelf light fighters to help combat violent extremists in the Middle East. But ...

Why hold yet another light attack experiment? Didn't the SNC/Embraer A-29B Super Tucano already win a similar evaluation before the United States Air Force pulled out of Light Air Support (LAS), formerly Light Attack/Armed Reconnaissance (LAAR)?
 
LAS was an attack helicopter replacement program for the Afghan National Air Force since the Hind struggles
in the hot-and-high conditions.

OA-X has several objectives. One that we've discussed is fighter pilot recruitment, training and retention which General Bunch
addressed during his AFA Breakfast talk.

Why are we even exploring this concept? The need is we need to absorb fighter pilots.
We need to bring them into the field and into platforms that are relevant,
so they can be seasoned and we can … address our fighter pilot shortfall.”

http://secure.afa.org/Events/Breakfasts/Breakfast-3-16-17-Bunch.mp3 @ 16:44
 
marauder2048 said:
LAS was an attack helicopter replacement program for the Afghan National Air Force since the Hind struggles
in the hot-and-high conditions.

And the 100 aircraft from the original RFI dated July 27, 2009 were intended to be operated by the Afghan Air Force when the program was called Light Attack/Armed Reconnaissance (LAAR)? Or were these to be United States Air Force operated aircraft under LAAR?
 
Triton said:
marauder2048 said:
LAS was an attack helicopter replacement program for the Afghan National Air Force since the Hind struggles
in the hot-and-high conditions.

And the 100 aircraft from the original RFI dated July 27, 2009 were intended to be operated by the Afghan Air Force when the program was called Light Attack/Armed Reconnaissance (LAAR)? Or were these to be United States Air Force operated aircraft under LAAR?

Iraq, Afghanistan, possibly Lebanon and some of the newer, poorer NATO members.

Iraq was to account for about 50 of those aircraft but that deal fell through and only Afghanistan ended up with aircraft under LAS.
 
From this weeks request on the light attack aircraft -

NOTIONAL LIGHT ATTACK REQUIREMENTS
 

Attachments

  • Demonstration Definitions .pdf
    66.9 KB · Views: 62
Who Are Contenders For the OA-X Light-Attack Demo?

The U.S. Air Force will take its first step toward potentially fielding a low-cost, light-attack aircraft this summer with a flight demonstration at Holloman AFB, New Mexico. The service is looking to choose up to four industry partners to bring one or two off-the-shelf aircraft to Holloman for a capability assessment in which Air Force aircrew will evaluate each aircraft’s ability to perform light attack and armed reconnaissance missions and operate from austere locations. For ...

http://aviationweek.com/defense/who-are-contenders-oa-x-light-attack-demo
 
D6. Air Sovereignty Alert is an interesting addition. A long endurance loitering jet could have some advantages to play against traditional QRA. With the increase fasle alert/safe check only.
 
In the early 1990's I thought an F-16XL or a modified variant (maybe with two engines :) similar to a Taiwanese Ching Kuo) would be a good interim aircraft until a dedicated A-10 replacement came about. I think the original assessment of an A-16 was that the aircraft was too fast and could not loiter like the A-10. With conformal fuel tanks maybe the design would be more ideal. The F-16XL had 17 hard points and can carry about 16,000 lbs of ordinance. After it released its payload it would have the ability to maneuver and have a supersonic dash out of the area. Downside, it lacks a big cannon like the A-10, and not as survivable if hit like the Warthog.
 

Attachments

  • f16XLATG.jpg
    f16XLATG.jpg
    15.4 KB · Views: 594
  • f16XLATG2.jpg
    f16XLATG2.jpg
    13.7 KB · Views: 575
  • f16ATGB.jpg
    f16ATGB.jpg
    11.3 KB · Views: 570
Dynoman said:
The F-16XL had 17 hard points and can carry about 16,000 lbs of ordinance.

Thing is, sheer weight of payload was never the key factor in CAS. Much was made of the ability to load the A-10 wingtip to wingtip, but I think the usual CAS load in Desert Storm was the gun, two Mavericks, and a couple of cluster bombs plus an ALQ and a Sidewinder for self-defense. Today, you could probably do with even less weight (more munitions, but much smaller than Maverick)
 
"Boeing Opts Out Of USAF’s Light Attack Demo"
Mar 29, 2017 Lara Seligman | Aerospace Daily & Defense Report

Source:
http://aviationweek.com/defense/boeing-opts-out-usaf-s-light-attack-demo?NL=AW-05&Issue=AW-05_20170330_AW-05_761&sfvc4enews=42&cl=article_2&utm_rid=CPEN1000001526993&utm_campaign=9328&utm_medium=email&elq2=239b441e4e5f4c169c40aa52efd9dfd2

Boeing has decided not to participate in the U.S. Air Force’s light-attack flight demonstration, a company spokeswoman says.

Boeing’s decision to opt out of the initial phase of the Air Force’s “OA-X” effort could leave the company at a disadvantage should the service ultimately decide to move forward with a plan to buy 300 low-cost, light attack aircraft for counterterrorism operations.

Boeing chose not to participate in this early stage of OA-X because the company does not “see a viable path forward for this phase,” spokeswoman Caroline Hutcheson told Aviation Week. The demonstration is planned to take place this summer at Holloman AFB, New Mexico. Proposals are due to the Air Force on April 7.

Hutcheson did not rule out Boeing participating in OA-X at a later date.

The move comes as a bit of a surprise, as Boeing has several off-the-shelf designs that would fit the OA-X bill. In 2009, Boeing put together internal plans to build a modernized version of North American Aviation’s OV-10 Bronco observation aircraft for a possible light-attack program that was later scrapped.

History shows the Air Force would be open to an OV-10X. The service evaluated two OV-10s as part of the 2013 Combat Dragon II program, aimed at demonstrating that a small turboprop can be effective at counterterrorism missions.

Boeing could also offer an attack variant of its next-generation T-X, which it is co-developing with Saab as an option for the Air Force to replace its legacy T-38 pilot trainers.

Less well known is Boeing’s collaboration with the South Africa-based Paramount Group on a new reconnaissance and light attack aircraft known as Mwari. Boeing is developing an integrated mission system for the aircraft, enabling it to perform intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR) and light strike missions. Mwari is a high-wing, twin-boom aircraft powered by a Pratt & Whitney PT6A-66B turboprop engine and pusher propeller. The wings accommodate six hard points for external stores and weapons; the fuselage contains a 20mm cannon.

The Holloman demonstration will inform the Air Force’s decision on whether or not to procure a light-attack fleet to help fight violent extremists in the Middle East and could potentially serve to alleviate the service’s growing pilot shortage. But the Air Force has stressed that right now the effort is in the experimentation phase, and no program of record has been initiated. The assessment at Holloman could lead to another experiment, a combat demonstration, or even an immediate acquisition program, said Lt. Gen. Arnold Bunch, the Air Force’s military acquisition deputy.

The Air Force is looking to choose up to four respondents to bring just one or two non-developmental aircraft to Holloman for a four- to six-week capability assessment. Air Force aircrew will fly the selected aircraft to assess its basic aerodynamic performance as well as its weapons, sensor, communications and austere field operations capabilities.

The aircraft selected must be able to perform light attack and armed reconnaissance and operate from austere locations, according to a list of notional requirements.

Qualifying aircraft need to be able to support a high operations tempo of 900 flight hours per year for 10 years and have a 90% mission capable rate for day and night missions. The aircraft must be able to take off using a maximum runway length of 6,000 ft. and be equipped with secure tactical communications and the ability to hit stationary or moving targets day and night. In addition, qualifying jets must have a 2.5-hr. mission endurance with an average fuel flow of about 1,500 lb./hr. or less. The aircraft will also be evaluated for survivability, including infrared and visual signature.

The most obvious front-runners are Embraer/Sierra Nevada’s A-29 Super Tucano, Textron/Beechcraft’s AT-6, and Textron’s Scorpion.
 
TomS said:
Dynoman said:
The F-16XL had 17 hard points and can carry about 16,000 lbs of ordinance.

Thing is, sheer weight of payload was never the key factor in CAS. Much was made of the ability to load the A-10 wingtip to wingtip, but I think the usual CAS load in Desert Storm was the gun, two Mavericks, and a couple of cluster bombs plus an ALQ and a Sidewinder for self-defense. Today, you could probably do with even less weight (more munitions, but much smaller than Maverick)

Heh. I just flashed back to visions of the A-10 with twin Sidewinders, triple racks of Mavericks, and loads of cluster bombs, the way we used to build the model kits.
 
TomS said:
Dynoman said:
The F-16XL had 17 hard points and can carry about 16,000 lbs of ordinance.

Thing is, sheer weight of payload was never the key factor in CAS. Much was made of the ability to load the A-10 wingtip to wingtip, but I think the usual CAS load in Desert Storm was the gun, two Mavericks, and a couple of cluster bombs plus an ALQ and a Sidewinder for self-defense. Today, you could probably do with even less weight (more munitions, but much smaller than Maverick)

Too bad the A-10 never got the pairs of 19-round HVM launchers.
 
"Lockheed Passes On USAF’s Light Attack Demo"
Apr 8, 2017 Lara Seligman | Aerospace Daily & Defense Report

Source:
http://aviationweek.com/awindefense/lockheed-passes-usaf-s-light-attack-demo

Lockheed Martin has decided not to offer an aircraft for the U.S. Air Force’s light attack demonstration this summer, making it the second major defense contractor in two weeks to opt out of the OA-X experiment. Lockheed joins Boeing in passing on the OA-X demonstration this summer at Holloman AFB, New Mexico, company spokesman John Losinger confirmed to Aviation Week. Proposals for the experiment – which could lead to a buy of 300 off-the-shelf, light-attack aircraft for ...
 
Lockheed owns Sikorsky, and the folks from CT have a lot on their plate just this moment without OA-X to worry about.
 
Not surprised to see these two opt out. I think neither LM nor Boeing have an offering that fits the current demonstration requirement.

Boeing doesn't have anything flying and non-developmental with austere field capability. OV-10X is a PowerPoint airplane (I'm not sure if Boeing even owns any flying OV-10 airframes right now) and T-X isn't even remotely "non-developmental" at this point. They don't have an airframe to spare for an OA-X demonstration even if they wanted to. Mwari isn't theirs to offer, since they just do mission systems for it.

Same for Lockheed Martin. FA-50 doesn't do austere fields and there's nothing else in their product line that would answer the mail.
 
What about a modified variant of the Scorpion? With what I have seen online about the Scorpion it can carry all the weapons that the A-10 can, the only thing missing would be a 25-30mm cannon pod but that would be easy to design and fit on.
 
If you want to replace the A-10 (and its gun) with a Scorpion carrying a pod-mounted gun, consider the size of the A-10's gun.
 

Attachments

  • easy.jpg
    easy.jpg
    52 KB · Views: 212
Arjen said:
If you want to replace the A-10 (and its gun) with a Scorpion carrying a pod-mounted gun, consider the size of the A-10's gun.

Okay perhaps not the A-10's cannon, maybe something a bit smaller like the Apache's Chain Gun for instance?
 
FighterJock said:
Arjen said:
If you want to replace the A-10 (and its gun) with a Scorpion carrying a pod-mounted gun, consider the size of the A-10's gun.

Okay perhaps not the A-10's cannon, maybe something a bit smaller like the Apache's Chain Gun for instance?
Just FYI there was/is a 4-barrel podded 30mm variant. It was not nice to F-16s trying to employ them.
 
There's a pretty good 25mm gun pod right now.
 
OA-X contenders are looking kinda sparse.

http://www.combataircraft.net/2017/04/12/oa-x-contenders-are-dropping-like-flies/
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom