In a move that harkens back to the days of recycled World War II torpedo bombers sheep-dipped as close air support planes, the Navy intends to field a limited number of turbo-prop attack planes outfitted with the most modern surveillance, tracking and weapons systems to help special ops forces keep track of bad guys and, in a pinch, put warheads on foreheads.
Call it an A-1 Skyraider on steroids a Back to the Future-resurrection of a kind of plane last seen pounding enemy positions with rockets, guns and bombs over Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos in the 1960s.
Code named Imminent Fury, the classified, year-long program has so far produced one fully-outfitted plane and is set to field four more to directly support SEALs and other operators on the battlefield in Afghanistan.
According to a source close to the program who declined to be named, the Navy has leased an EMB-314 Super Tucano for the job. Made by the Brazilian aerospace company Embraer, it is now being tested on desert ranges in California and the services top test facility at Patuxent River Naval Air Station, Md. The Navy loaded it up with sensors and weapons systems that would make an F-16 pilot blush, the source said.
With top end electro-optical and infrared sensors, laser and GPS-guided bombs, rockets, twin .50 cal. machine guns, encrypted radios and even the capability to tie in UAV surveillance feeds the Super Tucano outfitted for the SEALs is a ground-pounders angel from above.
Military.com contacted the Navy for comment on this story, but despite a detailed public briefing on the program in March by a high-ranking program official, the service declined to elaborate on the program other than to say in a written statement: Imminent Fury is a classified Navy initiative to address urgent warfighter needs. Initial developmental testing has been promising and the Navy is currently conducting discussions with our Joint partners on various courses of action as this initiative moves forward.
News of the Imminent Fury program comes as commanders in Afghanistan wrestle with the persistent problem of civilian casualties resulting from errant or mistaken bomb strikes typically from aircraft high above the battlefield.
A recent investigation report on a high-profile friendly-fire incident in Farah province showed that high-altitude B-1 bombers had little ability to discriminate enemy from civilians during several bombings in support of Marine spec ops forces under Taliban assault.
Many argue that low-altitude aircraft that can fly for long periods over combat zones loaded with various weapons are needed to avoid such incidents. For advocates of the Imminent Fury program, the Super Tucano with its five-hour endurance fits the bill for a so-called counter insurgency aircraft.
The SEALs said we want a persistent capability at low cost, small footprint and turbo-prop aircraft to do armed intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance missions, the source close to the program said. Everyone who gets briefed on this program has been blown away.
Over the past year, both Navy and Air Force pilots have flown the leased Super Tucano in tests. According to the source, the single-engine, two-pilot plane has successfully dropped both laser and GPS guided bombs, as well as a wide range of guided and unguided rockets.
According to statistics from an Embraer brochure, the EMB-314 has a maximum speed of nearly 370 mph and a maximum ceiling of 35,000 feet. The plane can take off and land in just under 3,000 feet and can carry a maximum load of nearly 3,500 pounds.
The initial cadre of four SEAL-supporting Super Tucanos will be flown by Navy pilots activated as individual augmentees, and multiple sources close to the program report that aviators are clamoring to get involved with the program.
But it is still unclear whether Imminent Fury will get off the ground since funding for the program is in doubt. Sources say there is no money earmarked for the program in the 2010 budget but that the service is hoping for some reprogramming authority to move funds from other accounts to buy the four planes requested by the SEALs.
– Christian
Somewhere there’s a meeting of USAF four-stars where they are “joking” about “accidentally” shooting it down before the Army wants some and Congress takes some gee-whiz AF money to do it.
Gurantee you the AF tries to get this program cancelled….
But…but…with the money they’re spending on this, they could buy something like 1/274th of an F-22! This program will cause our global air superiority to be lost in 2034!
Why do the Special Forces hate America?
Posted by: Total
Why do the Special Forces hate America?
=======================================
You have no idea what you are talking about.
“You have no idea what you are talking about.”
Sure I do! They’re taking money away from the F-22, the plane that will single-handedly protect us from China, India, Russia, and tooth decay! And they’re doing it just because they actually want weapons that are useful in an actual war!
DefenseNews had a story on this back in March:
http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=3989159&c=AME&s=AIR
YES! If the SEALs get this plane that means we (AF) will not be able to buy all of OUR shiny new toys…not to mention our golf courses! Who contributes more to the War On Terror us or those silly little SEALs….I mean come on, do you people want crazy guys in rubber rafts or more fighter mafia in cool looking F-22s?? You know the right answer…..
Don’t disparage the name “fighter mafia” by conflating it with the F-22, please thanks. That was the sort of program Col. Boyd et al hated.
And just field a COIN bird already, somebody. For the love of god, how long do they need to think this over?
I don’t see why this has to turn into a pissing contest. As someone noted in the original article, this isn’t going to replace anything the Air Force fields such as the A-10 or AC-130 because it doesn’t have the punch. All this means is that the SEALs will be able to maintain CAS without having to cut through red tape to get to it, and the Air Force will be able to move resources elsewhere. My main concern is durability. Yes, i realize that putting armor on it isn’t exactly rocket science, but the truth is the whole reason this plain has appeal is that it’s small, precise, and can fly (relatively) low and slow; all of that makes it prime AAA bait. Were I in the Squid think tank, i’d be more concerned with selling people on that point more than anything else, especially with the flack the CV-22 project’s been getting.
finaly they are going to make a proped support for Ospreys and A-130..
Couldn’t they have possibly used a local manufacturer? Now is really the time to get as many homegrown deals as we can. I like the idea but just how classified is this thing?
The F22 debate more than likely will not apply here. The DOD will probably give the money to the program because it is a urgent war fighter need. The question I have, is why the super tacano.
The air tractor would more than likely make a better CAS/COIN air craft than the super tacano due to being able to carry more weapons than the embraer aircraft. Besides…its made in the USA which will be a selling point to tthe senate and congress.
defensor fortissimo,
You have to realize that anytime any of the services try to procure something that (in the AF’s view) takes away from their mission and/or funding they try to co-opt it or get it cancelled.
Ask the Army….the AF tried to co-opt all UAS programs by being designated the ‘executive agency’ for UAS programs.
CR,
Well to be perfectly fair it cuts both ways–I have yet to run into a piece of gear that uses ABU, for example, its all ACU. That’s one of the more superficial examples, but my point is that in the Air Force it’s more than probable your gear is going to be something the army issued;in Vietnam of course.
Your point about the Air Force hijacking other branches projects is a fair one, but by that logic, the Apache should have had Air Force wings painted on it’s sides years ago.
It’s also worth noting that just because the Air Force takes control of a project doesn’t mean it’s the kiss of death for it. If memory serves, back at the close of the Vietnam war, the Army was looking at getting a CAS plan to replace the A1 and the Air Force took control of the project. The result was a twin engined dynamo that all 3 branches of the military swears by.
As for asking the army what they think, i found out the hard way long ago that that’s a good way to get a monosyllabic rant about how the Chair Force are all a bunch of pencil pushing egg heads better trained in the art of golf than war
I’m pretty sure I remember reading an op-ed in Proceedings a gajillion years ago (probably more like 10) arguing that the Navy should bring back the F-7 Tiger, updated with turbo-props and electronics, of course, to get the CAS capability that it had lost years ago with the retirement of the A-1 and A-7. Pretty well-voiced opinion at the time, and of course there’s been lots of talk about that since then in lots of different sources.
Will have to look around the base to see if I can spot this guy flying around (haven’t noticed him yet, but we have a lot of T-6’s around here, so if you don’t look at every turbo-prop that goes by, it’d probably be easy to miss, which is of course the idea I’m sure). Haven’t heard any talk about it around the water cooler either, which is semi-surprising, since I would think it needs a flight clearance to fly as a Navy asset. Maybe the fact that it is leased allows the Navy to avoid that issue by passing the buck for safety-of-flight back to Blackwater?
Lots of talk about getting a new CAS/COIN prop aircraft, not about bringing back the F-7 Tiger, naturally.
A seal plane? I didn’t know those things could fly, what with their flippers and shit…
In the environment of little to zero air defense threat, anything with flight goes. The day our current enemies develop a serious ground-to-air threat, the game changes. For now, while we dominate the skies over the current battlegrounds, ideas like these remain a tremendous amount of value. I would look for a little more endurance, and/or refueling capability. Otherwise, cheaper than a single raptor? Hell yeah. Out of all the possibilities I would like an upgraded Warthog. Best CAS ever.
Af/Pak and Iraq are definetly low threat in regards to anti aircraft fire. In Vietnam WWII era AD-1 Skyraiders preformed extremely well and there the AAA threat was the highest US ever faced.So no problem with survivability,and lets be clear any turboprop moving at 200-300mph has a better survivability than a much slower moving helicopter like Apache ,and in contrast to old COIN planes that realy got their hands dirty delivering unguided munitions precisely at the targets these planes will operate much more like maned drones at altitudes with guided bombs and missles,bigger problem is the way US military works everything gets gold plated and this plane will end up costing well over 10 mio US$ and carry over 100K US$ a pop ordanance one every flight . And it is realy bizare that you are droping 500-2000 pound bombs on targets that could be easily destroyed with 100lbs or even 20-50lb missle like SPIKE . Coin turboprops are the way to go,afpak is realy no place for jet fighters that cost huge $$$ just in operating hours and fuel for limited effect and ad to that the tankers as most jets need to refuel every 30-45 minutes if they are carying bombs,and imagine how much it costs for a B-1 or even a B52 to make it to Afghanistan and most of the time not making a drop.Realy a huge waste of $$$
There must be a few Cavalier F-51D Mustang derivatives sitting around in sheds somewhere (Bolivia? Indonesia?)that can serve as templates for a new US-built COIN mudfighter.
Why not used Scaled Composites Ares aircraft?
http://www.scaled.com/projects/ares.html
The Super Tucano is combat proven & available. Any alternative that involves R&D may be better for 1 reason or another, but it might not get to Afghanistan in time.
Yes, the A-1 performed well in Vietnam, but that was South Vietnam. The “highest (AA) threat the US ever faced” was in parts of the North where the A-1s didn’t go. The Soviets had a lot of problems over Afghanistan after we started supplying the muj with Stingers. The Talibs & Qaeda don’t have a sponsor like the muj did, but they have drug money. If they can buy modern shoulder-launched SAMs on the black market, it will create big problems for us.
B. Skinner, don’t know what vehicles you’re writing about, but if you mean the ones made by Engesa, they’re OOB. And they had nothing like the protection from land mines that an MRAP has.
Total, it’s hilarious that people don’t know you’re being sarcastic. Whaddaya gonna do?
FYI, the base military model of the Super Tucano cost a little less than $10 million a piece when Columbia bought a batch of them for its military a couple of years ago.
The weapons and avionics modifications probably cost another $5-$20 million a plane, but it still comes out much cheaper than a new F-16 and only a little more than the A-10 did when you adjust for inflation.
This is on the order of 10%-25% of the cost of an F-22, and less than half of the projected cost of an F-35. And, who needs radar stealth or dog fighting ability when your opposition (in Afghanistan and also in Iraq) lacks radar, aircraft and any meaningful number of anti-aircraft weapons?
Good Morning Folks,
To Will. You are correct I didn’t mention specific vehicles or manufactures in my generalized statement on Brazils emerging defense industries.
I also didn’t mention that Brazil already has as conventional submarine that is wet, the Scorpene Class, and that it is made in the Odebrecht shipyard, or that Brazil has had since 1979 had a Nuclear Submarine program. I assumed that the generalizations served to point out that other countries are getting into the arm business. The story after all was about the emb 314.
As for the MPAR, it has already has been defeated by the EFP’s, along with the 63 ton M-1A1 Tanks in Iraq. On Nov.26, of last years the C.O. of 1/5 Cav, 1st. Cav. Division a Lt. Col. Dale Kuehl, who went by the handle of “Jedi Knight” decided to take a ride outside the gate of Camp Victory in an MRAP thinking he was invisible, he was wrong. See the video over on the Cross Saber site of what happened if you like. The Lt. Col. was seriously wounded and his driver killed.
We fail on this web site as well as the other sites dealing with defense technology to look into what the enemy is up to, so far in Iraq and Afghanistan they have been doing pretty good at countering what ever the United States sends at them.
A look at the rational the Senate used to vote down the F-22 show how much out of the loop our law makers are. The killing of the F-22 was the right thing but the wrong reason were used. When on reads that Congressman Murtja send General Conway a letter stating the EFV might be in trouble because it is made of aluminum and that not good for a fighting vehicle. one has to wonder at the level of basic intelligence out law maker have. Of course the kick in the bu** here is that Congressman Murtha is a Retired Marine Colonel, the Marines have used aluminum amphibious assault vehicle since the 1930’s. This is unacceptable.
ALLONS,
Byron Skinner
The Super Tucano is a beautiful aircraft.
Iraq is geting full outfited COIN Texans for 10 mio basic texan’s run at cca 6mio and the tucanos were always cheaper.Embraer already offers an add on FLIR turret ,the most esential piece of gear ,so anything much more than 10mio is realy goldplating and in adition to initial price the running costs of a turboprop compared to even a small jet like F16 are 10+ times less .A F35 or F22 are much bigger and again even much more expensive to run than F16 + none of these can be based on forvard airfields.
There should be a rush to get these aircraft to theatre. How many SDB’s can this carry? Payload is 3,700 or so, thats a couple Hellfire’s and if needed a couple 500lb PGM’s. Configure the payload to the mission. This is something the F-22 will NEVER do. Buy the plane.
I think this is a smart idea but I would rather the contract goto an American company. Something like a liberator or a Mitchell WWII plane that would be badass. I love those twin tail mini bombers. Not an expert really but they seem like they would give you longer loiter and better payload.
“I’m pretty sure I remember reading an op-ed in Proceedings a gajillion years ago (probably more like 10) arguing that the Navy should bring back the F-7 Tiger, updated with turbo-props and electronics, of course…”
I wrote that article. Thanks for the kind comments. And actually, it wasn’t a “gajillion” years ago, but rather a bajillion
I like this concept although it is less ambitious than I would prefer. Still, it’s a step in the right direction. I do take exception to the original post’s description of the aircraft as an A-1 on steroids. Physically, this newer system is a lightweight compared to the A-1. However, advanced avionics/weaponry give should give it quite a bit of potency.
LOL…
What a joke, from a tactical point of view this thing is not going to survive. Its low slow and easy meat for the most primitive of SHORAD.
Maybe the SEALS will use it to beat up on goat hearders but anyone else will knock it down.
It reminds me of the P-51s that ended up deploying to Korea in 1950. They could not handle fast movers and they were surprisingly vunnerable to ground fire. Should ahve kept the P-47 instead.. Likewise the AH-64 got their butts handed to them in 2003 when they tried to take on good old AAA without fast movers to soften it up for them but I digress.
The COIN concept was largly discredited because low and slow usually ends up meaning down and dead. Some A/C like the A-10 get around this with armor but this thing is just a deathtrap unless you are going after domestic hot-heads with no AAA. Everyone else will just shoot it down and forget about it.
Build more F-22s and F-18s, cancel the useless F-35. And for CAS how about a UCAV with similar specs to the A-10.
p-51 twin mustangs dowed the first migs in korea. A-1 skyraiders did an outstanding job of providing cover for jolly greeens as they recovered downed airmen in north vietnam.
No, it’s not a joke–there’s a real place for a system like this. And it’s for ops against the “goat hearders [sic]” that M167A1 mentioned. These aircraft will be very effective for ops against ill-equipped folks like the Taliban in Afghanistan, or insurgents in Iraq.
Performing these types of ops with our current stable of aircraft is wickedly inefficient. For instance, launching a section of Hornets from a CVN in the Arabian Gulf, refueling them multiple times to get them where they need to go, keeping them there and finally getting them home…is grossly expensive (cost of keeping a CVN on station, wear and tear on the Hornets, fuel, cost of supporting tankers, etc.). And for what? Watching a couple of knuckleheads mucking around at the edge of a road?
On the other hand, sending a couple of these inexpensive (relatively) aircraft airborne from within country, and keeping them overhead for hours at a time–without inflight aerial refueling–is a great option. Waaaay more efficient, and probably more effective, than supporting with Hornets (and I’m a former F/A-18 guy).
They aren’t intended for ops against folks with a comprehensive IADS.
BTW, I agree that the P-47 would have been better than the P-51 for the mission in Korea. But most of the P-47s had been replaced by P-51s by then so they danced with what they had.
And we will see a UCAV capable of performing CAS, but not in the same dynamic fashion that the A-10 operates.
First,Remember the silent little bird used in Vietnam for recon and precision strike? I think it was a Helio – utterly silent even up close. This was for a reason. Any normal turbo engine is going to tip off the shooters that a peril is nearby. Second, flying low and slow or even low and fast puts you in the ground fire envelope. So little SEALBird, better have some under armor. Since things that go boom generally flash, better have scoot speed to get away after they’ve been angered. Lurk, look, shoot, scoot. Requirements derive from that doggerel.
Hasn’t anybody heard of the Black Ponies ????? Sounds like a somewhat similar mission to me.
Byron,
Not sure where you got your information but I gave up command of 1-5 CAV in April 2008 and was not in Baghdad last November, nor was I riding in an MRAP thinking I was invisibile, nor was I wounded. Also, never called myself Jedi Knight.
Dale Kuehl
The real game in COIN is (a) being out of AAA/SAM range (b) being within sensor range (c) being within the weapons envelope. Shortly this will all be achieved by (a) weapons assets high and dry in a bomb truck (b) cheap, multiple, tiny UAV sensors in meshed networks passing video/IR feeds for weapons release/area targeting and local designation for the terminal phase of the weapon.
The bomb trucks can drop the expendable UAVs as they’re attrited and go past bingo. The kill to dollar ratio for such a system will be enormous compared to conventional a/c, refuelers, CAPS and SAR.
It would also saturate even complex IADS and jamming countermeasures by combining visual/IR and even GPS targeting data into burst transmissions to near neighbour UAVs to daisychain the data out of the jammed zone. One by one the IADS components would be picked off by remotely released weapons. This exposes no expensive assets, the attrited assets are cheap, plentiful and quickly replaceable. It’s the modern long bow with the redundancy of the internet.
The COIN plane must work tactically if the rumors of AFSOC getting into the game are true. That's why the Air Force tried to punt COIN plane funding in the budget, hoping it will blow over with any success in Afghanistan. Regardless, there is a need for an economical low end to the high/low mix. Ultimately the Texan or Super Tucano are both capable of doing the job. True, the Texan is American made, but A) I believe Embraer is looking at doing some production of the Super Tucano in Florida if the military buys it; and B) what often goes unstated is that we're also looking for a plane that is disposable, i.e., we take a COIN plane into Afghanistan, use it, train the Afghans on it, and leave it with them. In some events, if CIA and spooks are operating in a country clandestinely, supporting a faction, etc., it's politically better for South American planes to start showing up than American ones.