Last week, I wrote up a new RAND report over at DOD Buzz calling for the Air Force to quit putzing around and get in on the irregular warfare gig. If, like me, you believe the future is one filled with lots of small irregular, what we used to call “brushfire wars,” when they all seemed to be located in Africa, then you’ll find common ground in this latest from RAND’s Project Air Force that calls for a serious cultural shift away from the fast mover mafia’s all air-superiority all the time so that becoming an irregular warfare expert isn’t the “kiss of death” (RAND’s words) for airmen.
Good luck. Although, I have to say I am impressed with air chief Gen. Norton Schwartz’s efforts to drag his service into the 21st century with the Light Attack and Armed Reconnaissance (LAAR) aircraft initiative, which might, just might, see an order placed this year. RAND says standing up a dedicated COIN wing with about 100 of the light attack planes would go far to help shift that Air Force mindset.
Earlier this week, Hawker Beechcraft tested a beefed up version of its venerable T-6 Trainer single prop it plans to compete in the LAAR fly-off expected this summer. Designated the AT-6, the two-seater features a new 1600 horse power Pratt & Whitney engine that will give the aircraft a larger weapons and electronic surveillance load out.
A beefed up trainer seems just the sort of thing the Air Force needs for the LAAR; nothing too fancy, just effective and low-cost. But I’m still awaiting a high-wing entrant like the Vietnam era OV-10 Bronco. Every bush plane I’ve ever flown on in Africa, where ground observability is key, was a high-wing. Just saying.
– Greg
{ 48 comments… read them below or add one }
Neevr happen…..the AF wants nothing to do with these aircraft.
They want nothing but fighters and have proven as much time and time again. They begrudgingly kept the A-10 in service even though they wanted to retire it and they even fought UAVs at first.
The fighter mafia will never let this happen…..
If the Air Force leadership sits on their er, hands, the Army will demand to get back into fixed-wing tacair. The Navy is already moving in this direction.
Whats wrong with the P51? We know it works, it's combat proven, and it's got that classic look to it.
1: it runs on gas not jp8
2: it has a max ground attack loadout of something like 500 lbs.
3: it was never designed with an observer position. I know many have been converted but the back seat leaves little room for a mission electronics package.
4: the wing profile was designed for speed not loitering and is very inefficient at low speed.
if you fix these problems you basically end up with a T-6 or Tucano.
the IL-2, p-47, F4, and A1 are all better places to start. most of these would only need to be fitted with a turboprop to surmount the aforementioned technical challenges. again this would require a checkout phase that would certainly not be free.
this brings us to the fifth and most important problem,
5: the p51 is not currently in production.
the T-6 and the Tucano are both currently in production and have economies of scale slightly on their side. the cost of a new build P-51 with a turboprop and modern avionics would end up similar in price if not slightly more expensive. this is mainly because the actual per unit fabrication cost of just the airframe is a negligible part of the flyaway cost.
If you want to see what an updated P51 would look like, check out the Piper PA48 Enforcer at the National Museum of the USAF website.
Bring back the Cessna Skymaster! Smaller twin-engine aircraft – high monowing.
Let the army and Marines have them. The Air-force doesn't want them and that's ok by me. These guys could replace huge numbers of attack Helos the Army currently used, give them a pivoting wing so they have very short take off and landing requirements (Think Bush plane), huge hang time and lots of weapons.
The Texan II are $6million each, while the Apache is $16million each. IE 8 Texans for 3 Apaches. It seems just ridiculous that the army is forced to use Rotor wing for things that fixed wing would do better because only the other services are allowed to have fixed wings.
This looks like a great opertunity for the Marines to expand there air wing and provide direct air support to troops on the ground without heavy cost of adding fast movers to a MAGTF!
Wonder why Cessna hasn't thrown its hat in the ring?
They haven't really been a major military contractor, or even in contention, since their JPATS offering was passed over.
There's something to be said for a light jet- type attack aircraft based on Citation components. The A-37s were clearly useful in 'Nam. But at this point, Cessna would have to make a clean sheet design, no matter what type of propulsion. LAAR has always been more about a modified off-the-shelf design.
Never happen. It doesn't cost enough ( no big bucks for politicians and defense contactors), isn't high tech enough, and no one that flys one can ever aspire to becoming an ace. No glamor. The Army won't get any because there is a law against the Army flying armed fixed wing aircraft. If the Army wants close air support they have to make do with heliocopters.
Actually, it's not a law, but more of an understanding born out of the Air Force's creation in the late 40's. One that is getting ignored more and more because of the Army's acquisition of fixed-wing UAVs for surveillance and fire support. I think that the Army has the right idea by continuing to purchase UAVs with fire support capabilities. If the Air Force wants to continue to be obsessively focused on air superiority, than let them. But at least reduce their budget and give the money to the Army to develop and field more UAVs.
pffft… I'd fly it… flying CAS would be awesome.
Light Attack and Armed Reconnaissance (LAAR) should be a observation and Combat Air Support platform that is designed for the job at hand. Not a mult-role fighter pressed into duty as ground support. This aircraft needs to split the difference between an Apache, an A10 and a Reaper. A potential concept for this can be found at: www .architectswanderlust. com/?p=16 , (Box wing, Ducted Props, vSTOL, M230 Belly Turret.) The next redesign will be high-wing as Greg Suggests.
Light Attack and Armed Reconnaissance (LAAR) should be a observation and Combat Air Support platform that is designed for the job at hand. Not a mult-role fighter pressed into duty as ground support. This aircraft needs to split the difference between an Apache, an A10 and a Reaper. A potential concept for this can be found at architectswanderlust dot com. (Box wing, Ducted Props, vSTOL, M230 Belly Turret.) The next redesign will be high-wing as Greg Suggests. Any comments would be apprecated.
Light Attack and Armed Reconnaissance (LAAR) should be a observation and Combat Air Support platform that is designed for the job at hand. Not a mult-role fighter pressed into duty as ground support. This aircraft needs to split the difference between an Apache, an A10 and a Reaper.
OV-10X Super Bronco is the best. When you are engaging the terrorists below, so are the terrorists. When their guns strike an engine, you feel lucky you have another engine alive. Super Bronco is the only candidate which has two engines. Whatever the price is, survivability is an issue you cannot compromise. It's made in USA and building Super Broncos will give jobs to Americans as well.
With today's technology, I think the airforce can do more than this design. Why not use a jet engine and design like the F-35 engines. More fast and stealth design.
you dont understand the platform
Why not a starship?
The kind of aircraft you don't want fast. It needs to have lots of low speed handling and lots of loter time. torbo props are by far better for this roll. Not to meanchen the the F-35 powerplant coast more than any of the perposed airframs.
Because then it would be a…
(get ready for it)
F-35.
Our country already know the mechanics of stealth design. Some terrorist may already be armed with anti aircraft missiles, that can be used agaisnt slow flighing aircraft like the airforce coin planes. The body airframe shape can somewhat close to British tornado NG4 Jet planes. Jet engines are the trend for the 21'st century aviation.
once again you dont understand the platform
Pedestrian has it down cold. I was in the Mekong Delta in 1971 and got to watch those Navy OV-10 "Black Ponies" from the best seat in the house while they were making gun runs on a bunker complex strewn with VC and the vaunted .51 cal
MG. The "Super Bronco" has so many advantages over any low wing single engine, single pilot aircraft it should be a NO BRAINER.
1.) Give this aircraft to the Marines 1st !
2.) Reactivate the Army's 1st AVN BDE and let a few squadrons of those
excellent aircraft replace any fast moving Air Force tactical air asset other
than the A-10 Warthog.
3.) Rocket pods. mini guns and a built in FAC – Oh my !
What I want to see is DAGR or APKWS II in the rocket pods.
Imagine 19 precise laser guided rocket in the pods, and its cheap,
Add another pod and you get 38 for CAS!
Imagine 38 rockets blowing up around the terrorists,
it sounds like A-10 Warthog Lite with Hell Fire Jr..
It's better with just hanging a few expensive over killing Hell Fires.
Low cost per flight, low cost per fire, OV-10 Super Bronco combined with DAGR/APKWS II is the solution.
I bet you guys $$$ to donuts that this thing will cost USD50mil a piece. At which point the army will wonder "why didn't we just buy more Apaches"
Chesty Puller (in a letter from Korea) once said that "the USAF never understood close air support and never would". The ideal product would probably be a scaled back A-10 as outlined in book "America's Defense Meltdown" Edited by W. Wheeler. But the Beech or OV-10 would all be practical, useful, and affordable candidates over what we have now. Unfortunately, simplicity does not now seem to sell to the staff side of the military – look at past USAF attempts to be rid of the A-10. – the best platform there is for close air support.
This is another case of "Back to the Future". I remember the transformation of the T-37 to the A-37 for the Vietnam War. The USAF took a basic trainer and modified it with more powerful engines, a minigun in the nose, and hardpoints for rockets/bombs. After the war, the A-37 first went to the Reserves, then later gifted to 3rd world allied air forces. The A-37 may have never been a favorite with the USAF, but our allies appreciated its speed, payload, and low cost of ownership.
old is new again
I vote for the OV-10 or the A1E sky raider on steroids with a turbo prop engine
Hell the best aircraft for this type of combat is the phenominal A 1E Skyraider or SPAD , long legs and plenty of firepower , easily carrier qualified so it can go anywhere. It has proven it can take punishment as well. During Nam these were the guardian angels for downed pilots, and the different munition loadouts was awe inspiring. The advances in avionic's as well as add on weapon systems would make this a scourge in any counter-insurgency role.
Why not just buy more A10s because they can atleast take a sevear beating and get their pilots home, and are able to protect them selves to some extent from foriegn air assets if need be . They have been known to take down rotary aircraft as well as a few fast movers ie the first Gulf war !
When did an A-10 ever take down any "fast movers"?
But if you're playing this game, the A-1 Skyraider splashed two MiG-17s in 'Nam. Any high-speed jet that slows down to try and mix it up with a mudfighter is asking for it. That's beside the point. Self escort is not in the job description of the LAAR or the 'Hog. Also note, A-10s have survived a hell of a beating, but they've also been shot down by MANPADS. They are not invincible, nothing is.
For this Irregular War mission, what's needed are two seats and applicable armament. They'd also like something they can sell to foreign air forces. That puts the Warthog out of contention.
Looks very vulnerable to ground fire. The cost of losing pilots is prohibitive politically.
…flew high wing "observation" aircraft (L-19 Birdog) 40 years ago….shot up plenty of times,….never in front of the wing……just couldn't judge the aircrafts airspeed……..stay on sight for 4 hours……."modernize" the damn thing and bring her back….she always brought us back, rockets, automatic weapons, and a lot of firepower when requested………
I'd like to see the Air Force either shit or get off the pot on this subject. There's a lot of good use us Army aviators can put a turboprop to. Unfortunately the Army is to much in love with UAV systems and the Longbow to make an aggressive move and take over the LAAR program. As usual the Air Force will drag their feet and this program will more than likely never make it past the concept phase (see how long the AF fought the MC-12 Liberty idea). All and all a ground attack turboprop flown by the Army would be an excellent addition to the current fleet of Longbows and Kiowa Warriors.
So far, sounds about right. The Corps will probably be flying the OV-10X, the Air Force will be flying some up-rated, wildly expensive, bloated version of the AT-6 (A spiffy white silk scarf for all their CAS pilots and sparkly paint shark face on the planes.), and the Army………..well………they’ll still be waitin’ on the Air Force to show-up for their CAS……! If I had a vote, I’d go with a modernized Super Tweet. Semper Fi.
i like the Bronco.
Screw all this COIN plane crap.
How come nobody uses recoilless rifles anymore?
http://www.ww2incolor.com/updates?g2_itemId=42395…
And why stop at just two M-14s per squad? Sad really. It's the 21st Century and the US Army still doesn't have a decent standard issue rifle. And no more bayonets? What the hell is this??
M3 Carl Gustav's a RR no?
Nothing wrong with it; if anything more M3's ought to be issued. Seeing Humvees putting a guided TOW missile into Uday/Qusay's safe house made me wonder if a recoiless rifle would have been more cost effective and provided just as much bang.
modify the A-10 to scrap the cannon and replace it with four miniguns for strafing. With bombs and rockets, it'd outshoot an Apache any day.
LARR should be "off the shelf". A whole new design would take years to design, test and field. Jet engine?!!! Sure use up all the fuel in one pass of CAS. Keep with the turboprop, but a stronger version of it's engine. Pay load. Broncos had a pretty good one. And with the high wing, bug-eyed canopy, great short field performance and two engines, what more can you ask for. COIN was flow primarily by AFSOC folks. You know the people who brought you gunships with the highest demand in the past and present. Another AFSOC wing with LAARs A/C would give USAF more time to develop the MC-130X for the gunship role. Boeing could open up the Columbus, OH plant to make Broncos again. And it's still off the shelf. Gen Schwartz use to be in AFSOC, so he would know its value and there just might be a chance for gunship crews to relax from so many deployments and A/C fatigue.
Dumb question:
What would it take to navalize one of these turboprops? Offhand it seems like you ought to be able to fly them off one the Marine Corps’ baby carriers (especially if we’re going to be short on F35s??) – is there some utility in that?
Why our USAF just buy additional updated A-10′s just like what the Navy did to F/A-18 E/F model. Because A-10′s will rock any opposition force anytime and anywhere. A-10′s just need a new engine with thrust vertoring system, lighter composite airframe in certain areas, a targeting system inbeaded just like the JSF on it’s ariframe. If they can do that… i think it will give FEAR to the enemies in th next 30 more years or more…
Got an idea admit you have antigrav tech and use it on the A-10 If they use prop planes I gotta bad feeling all the sudden you will see revenge for the stingers we supplied to the Afgahn warlords and Taliban and they will cut them to pieces.
We already have the A-10. Why spend for another headache? Why not save it for tomorrow's budget?
Not to start a political tangent, but maybe POTUS ought to step in and tell the services to re-examine Key West. If the army has air support needs that it thinks it can do better than the air force, more power to them.