Home » Air » Air Force » AT-6 Tested for Light Air Defense Missions

AT-6 Tested for Light Air Defense Missions

by John Reed on September 21, 2011

Here’s an interesting little nugget of info that came out of this week’s Air Force Association conference in National Harbor, Md:

Hawker Beechcraft and Lockheed Martin’s AT-6 entry into the Air Force’s light attack competition has been tested by the Air National Guard in the Air Sovereignty Alert (ASA) mission that defends U.S. airspace.

The turboprop plane flew in one of U.S. Northern Command’s Falcon Virgo ASA exercises out of Andrews Air Force Base, Md., last November where it intercepted a slow, Cessna-style propeller plane four times in the skies above Washington DC, said Derek Hess, Hawker Beechcraft’s director of AT-6 development, yesterday during a briefing at the conference.

The AT-6 zeroed in on the Cessna-like plane using radar information that was sent to it via the ubiquitous Link-16 datalink and exchanged text messages with ground controllers and a pair of F-16 fighters. The AT-6 being offered to the USAF comes equipped with a glass cockpit based on the A-10C Warthog’s.

“We successfully completed all four of the intercepts, we had been on station for a little more than two hours, the F-16s had departed, the didn’t have a tanker so they had gone back to land and they asked ups, ‘Ok, are you guys ready to land?’ We said, ‘well, we still have an hour and a half of fuel left… We were able to text both ground controllers as well as the F-16. We traded tracks with the F-16s that showed where we were locked to, we could see their radar information piped into the aircraft as well.”

While we usually hear about the AT-6 being proposed for a light ground attack and recon role, it can carry .50 caliber machine guns and will even conduct live-fire tests with the AIM-9X Sidewinder air-to-air missile in 2012, according to Hess.

The plane participated in the exercise as part of a multiyear evaluation by the Air National Guard aimed at testing the turboprop in a number of simulated combat simulations.

It’s common knowledge that Air Force (ANG and Reserve) F-16s and F-15s have been flying ASA patrols around major U.S. cities since 9/11. Less known is that the skies around DC are also patrolled by U.S. Coast Guard HH-65 Dolphin choppers tasked with intercepting small, slow targets like the Cessna intercepted by the AT-6. Kinda weird since the Dolphin’s primary mission with the Coasties is search-and-rescue.

This test comes after years of warnings by Air National Guard leaders that the ASA mission is being threatened by the fact that many ANG F-16s and F-15s are rapidly approaching the end of their service lives.

However, don’t expect the Guard to start replacing F-16s with AT-6s. The Air Force has recently committed to extending the lives of many of the “legacy” fighters and giving the jets new radars and avionics  to keep them flying until they can be replaced by the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. In a time of very tight budgets balanced against some very high profile acquisition projects, I don’t see a high likelihood of the service buying the AT-6 to fly ASA.

Meanwhile, remember that the Air Force has apparently pushed back the contract award date for the light attack contest until November (if it goes through with the effort, at all).

The light attack competition pits the AT-6 against Embraer’s Super Tucano and is meant to equip the Air Force with roughly 20 turboprop planes that will be used to help train nascent air forces around the world on how to operate a similar fleet of cheap and easy-to-use light attack craft.

While the Air Force might scale cut spending on all but its most important new weapons programs ( and light attack is not on of those programs), there are still plenty of opportunities to sell the plane to foreign air forces, said Lockheed’s Mike Silva during the same briefing.

“We know that around the world there are significant opportunities for light attack. There are hundreds of light attack aircraft out there today, from A-37s to F-5s, that are obsolete and unsupportable. These countries are going to have to buy something high-end or they’re going to have to buy something that’s more affordable … either jet or turboprop because they’re not going to be able to sustain what they have today.”

Share |

{ 105 comments… read them below or add one }

TLAM Strike September 21, 2011 at 9:06 pm

I'm eagerly awaiting the first mock dogfight between the AT-6 and the F-35…

F-35 Pilot's last words: "Oh dear God, he's out turning me!"

Reply

blight September 21, 2011 at 9:25 pm

It's a pretty strange feeling, coming from the lockstep idea that "interceptor=mach2+ jet" mode of thinking. Props and helicopters have had an transitional existenence: SAR used to be slower aircraft until replaced by rotary wing. CAS used to be the domain of the 'props until the helicopters arrived.

We're coming full circle, and to bean counters the question will be "why have helicopters and aircraft for CAS and low speed intercepts? I thought we bought one to replace the other"

Reply

major.rod September 22, 2011 at 12:46 pm

When the bean counters ask the question, "why have helicopters and aircraft for CAS and low speed intercepts? the Army will answer…

"Because we can't have armed fixed wing."

Reply

leesea September 25, 2011 at 12:53 am

All started with the Key West Accord, and of course IF someone told Congress to change that it would proabably take them FIVE years~

Reply

zman September 22, 2011 at 2:28 pm

whats even worst is that the coast guard is protecting the skies over DC

Reply

@E_L_P September 21, 2011 at 9:48 pm

The only F-16s worth upgrading over the long haul are our small number of Block 5X jets.

Hoping on the F-35 to come in for the win… well, good luck. And it costs more per hour than an F-16 to fly ASA.

Reply

Jay September 22, 2011 at 11:21 am

Agreed – who had the brillian idea replace the tried and true F16 and F15 flying domestic security missions with the moneypit F35? We need a stealth fighter to radar a suspicious cessna over DC?

Reply

TLAM Strike September 21, 2011 at 10:43 pm

I'm eagerly awaiting the first mock dogfight between the AT-6 and the F-22 or F-35.

"Oh crap he's out turning me!"

If we put an IRST system on it, and reduced its RCS its could be nasty! It pops up on you and suckers you in to a close in dogfight, we got our J-20 killer!

Reply

Doc61 September 21, 2011 at 11:22 pm

Except for the Air to Air missiles, we had a fighter that did a good job for CAS, The F4U Corsair, the P, (Later) F-51 Mustang. Are we re-inventing the wheel here?

Reply

Zspoiler September 22, 2011 at 7:17 pm

Rember the P-51 based turboprop powered Enforcer.

Reply

Riceball September 23, 2011 at 11:26 am

Not really since the production lines for the F4U and every other plane that was flown during WW II have long since closed. All currently flying examples of F4U's, P51's, B-17's, etc. are all relics left over from WW II or right after and are flying only because of the TLC lavished on them by dedicated owners and volunteer groups; none, save for the odd kit here and there, are current production.

So are we re-inventing the wheel here? Yes and no.

Reply

Mastro September 23, 2011 at 12:58 pm

That P51 in Reno didn't look all that impressive.

Reply

IronV November 22, 2011 at 3:44 pm

The P-47 was the premier air to ground fighter of WWII, but was scrapped to rapidly to be used in Korea. The Skyraider is another example of a great legacy air to grounder. There are others.

Reply

Jack R Dunn September 21, 2011 at 11:30 pm

In case there was any doubt that we are on the way to becoming a third world country; Turboprop Interceptors!

Reply

Musson1 September 22, 2011 at 9:37 am

During the Korean War – the US reactivated ANG Corsair fighters because the Norks were using bi-planes that were too slow and too maneuverable for Sabres to shoot down.

Reply

Mark September 22, 2011 at 10:09 am

Actually, the ANG didn't operate Corsairs – they were Navy/Marine aircraft. The prop planes were brought in at the beginning because jets were not available in sufficient numbers…nothing to do w/ bi-planes or the like.

Reply

Musson1 September 22, 2011 at 12:45 pm

Mark, You are probably too young to remember. But, the Navy borrowed several F4U's from the ANG and configured them as night fighters. Lt. Guy Bordelon became the Navy's only KW Ace by bagging two Yak-18's and three Po-2s.

They were flown by Navy pilots.

Reply

Mark September 22, 2011 at 3:26 pm

With all due respect, the ANG (Air National Guard) didn't use F4U's, however, they did use P-51s. When Korea began, VMF(N) 513 was sent to Japan from MCAS El Toro – Marine unit, FYI. The Navy didn't, and couldn't "borrow" because the ANG (the ANG used/uses USAAF and USAF planes) never had them. The night fighters, the -5N, were built in '45. The AU1 version was strictly for the Marines, which was used by the Marines in Korea.

Chris September 22, 2011 at 3:41 pm

Musson1, Mark is correct in this one. At the time of Korea, the USMC/USN had the F4U in their inventories. The USAF/ANG never had the plane. You are correct in that the Navy's only ace was Bordelon, but you only included 3 of his 5 kills (to become an ace). Mark was also correct in that the prop (USN/USMC/USAF) birds were used because of thier greater numbers at the beginning of the war, NOT because of dogfighting with bi-planes.

Mark September 22, 2011 at 6:44 pm

The ANG never had Corsairs, once again those were Navy/Marine planes. Never said that he shot down the planes or that they were used. However, the Navy didn't borrow any because they (and the Marines) had them in their inventory. At the beginning of the conflict, VMF(N) 513 was sent from MCAS El Toro to Atsuga for interdiction purposes, NOT because USAF fighters were being shot down by bi-planes. Your info on Guy was correct, but why did you list only 3 instead of the 5 kills required to be an ace? Don't believe Wikipedia…. The Corsairs (F4U-5N) and the F7Fs were used until the Douglas F3D (jet) came into service because there were no nightfighter jets at the time…The F4U-5N were sent to Korea because they were the ONLY night fighters we had, NOT because of jet fghters being shot down or whatever

Mark September 22, 2011 at 8:23 pm

Musson1, what I was referring to was the fact that the ANG never had Corsairs. The Navy had no need to "borrow" Corsairs from anyone, because they and the Marines had them in inventory. When the war broke out, VMF(N) 513 was sent from MCAS El Toro to Atsuga. They used the -5N which was fitted w/ radar – so your facts are skewed on that end. What I find funny is that you are stating that the USAF planes were downed by the biplanes… The reason the nightfighters were used to deal w/ them was because of the fact they, along w/ F7Fs, were the only planes that had radar, and they were used in that role until the Douglas F3D (a jet, btw) came into service and used for the rest of the war… Advice, don't rely on wikipedia for your info…

blight September 22, 2011 at 2:13 pm

Working on pulling info on the I-5, I-15 and I-153. They were retired to second line duty in 1942 and some were given to the KMT in the '30s, but have no records of what happened to those aircraft, or whether the Soviets scrapped those biplanes or gave them to DPRK.

Reply

JRL September 23, 2011 at 10:45 am

The nuisance bombers known as "Bedcheck Charlie" were not obsolete Soviet fighters. They were PoIikarpov PO-2 twin-seat biplanes.

Being of largely wood/fabric construction, they were very difficult to detect with early 50's radar, esp as they typically flew so much lower (and slower -typically around 60MPH…)than the hi-performance US aircraft attempting to intercept them.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Po-2

JL

Reply

Spaceman Spiff September 22, 2011 at 2:22 pm

First, the P-51 was brought in to help with the shortage of jets. Second, the F4U Corsair was never a part of the ANG (the P-51 was), it WAS a Marine/Navy bird. Third, your whole statement is wrong. The props were brought in for shortage purposes and had NOTHING to do with "bi-planes that were too slow or maneuverable for Sabres"…

Reply

Musson1 September 22, 2011 at 4:27 pm

Look up Lt. Guy Bordelon Jr. and I believe you will see that I was correct.

Reply

Musson1 September 22, 2011 at 4:34 pm

The USAF lost several Jets attempting to down 'Bed Check Charlies' in Korea. And, the Corsairs were requested to handle the slower bi-planes.

Reply

Spaceman Spiff September 22, 2011 at 8:25 pm

Are you saying the jets were shot down by these planes???????

SJE September 25, 2011 at 11:16 pm

There is such as thing as the right tool for the job. You don't need an F-22 to check out a Cessna that strayed into restricted airspace.

Plenty of high tech militaries use old technologies. most US firearms are based on technologies that pre-date the Vietnam war, but they WORK. The Brits and Aussies have no intention of giving up bayonets, whose function is to turn a gun into a sharp pointy thing. Right now, US soldiers are being killed by people with low tech weapons: RPGs, AK-47s and IEDs.

Its good for the DOD to invest in high technology, but we seem to spend way too much on high tech solutions to problems that can be solved with existing kit, and for much less $.

Reply

jamesb September 21, 2011 at 11:38 pm

Ok…..

Am I the one that see's the Air Forces constant 'go fast' mission creep here??????

Give the darn plane to the Army where it belongs helping look over the troops……

ONLY the US Ar Force could change up the whole darn concept to a 'go fast' one….
The y have f-15's and F-16'
s to do intercepts WTF do they need the AT-6????

Reply

jumper September 22, 2011 at 7:38 am

Oh boy…

Yes, give a fixed wing aircraft to the Army, the service least qualified to support it tactically and logistically. "Why do they need the AT-6?????" Never been to Afghanistan I see… but, luckily the article explains exactly why.

Reply

major.rod September 22, 2011 at 1:11 pm

Why do you feel the army can't support it tactically/logistically. The Army actually has more "aircraft" than the Air Force and has a BOATLOAD of experience with CAS given what the Apache & Kiowa have been doing.

Seems I heard this same argument when the Air Force was tyrying to block the Army from getting Predators. That didn't work either… (THANK GOD!)

Same obstructionism to get the troops on the ground responsive CAS in the interests of branch parochialism. Heck, your Air Force is having a major discussion over buying JUST a measely 20 of these planes. Thanks for nothing!

Reply

ImBetterThanU September 23, 2011 at 4:30 am

Having worked with the Army, they are currently not tactically sound in fixed wing operations. Just the wrong mindset of the fixed wing/battlespace relationship.

That being said, AF leadership has absolutely forgotten their history and have gone “all in” on unsustainable programs that do not support counterinsurgency efforts.

Reply

major.rod September 23, 2011 at 2:56 pm

Please be specific. Just saying "not tactically sound" doesn't wash. Considering the Army has been calling and directing close air since WWII its only a relatively new phenomenon where the Air Force must have an AIR FORCE guy calling in CAS and we still have situations where troops in contact are calling and directing CAS (e.g. Wanat).

Sounds a lot more like protecting one's turf than the Army can't do it.

blight September 22, 2011 at 2:08 pm

Trying to imagine the world where the Air Force lost helicopters because they were "least qualified" to support things with rotor blades.

Reply

Riceball September 23, 2011 at 11:17 am

Aside from the issue of the Army having not flown any CAS missions with fixed winged aircraft in several decades there's also the small issue of the Key West Agreements which does not allow the Army to operate armed fixed winged aircraft. So unless they amend or toss out the Key West Agreements there's no way in hell that the Air Force would allow the Army to get AT-6's or any other fixed wing aircraft that carries anything more lethal than a smoke rocket.

Reply

major.rod September 23, 2011 at 3:03 pm

Riceball you hit the nail on the head. "So unless they amend or toss out the Key West Agreements there's no way in hell that the Air Force would allow the Army to get AT-6's or any other fixed wing aircraft that carries anything more lethal than a smoke rocket."

And hence my comment about branch parochialism and not putting ground pounder's lives first.

BTW, ref the Army not flying fixed wing CAS in awhile, until fairly recently the Army had NEVER operated UAVs either. Yes, there's a difference but it isn't rocket science. The USAF is just trying to make it sound harder than it is. That same thought process is why the Air Force uses officers to operate UAVs where the Army has NCO's doing the same thing.

Reply

tiger September 24, 2011 at 4:12 pm

Because the threat is not a Soviet Bomber, it is a guy in a small plane. The jets are flying at near stall speeds to fly with a Cessna. Thus they have been using choppers than again can't break 200 knots. You need something in between.

Reply

jamesb September 21, 2011 at 11:39 pm

Am I the Only one…..

Gheez I just can't believe this piece!

Reply

Paralus September 21, 2011 at 11:55 pm

This program is a sad fig leaf covering what remains of a program intended to provide CAS to US soldiers and Marines. While the idea of a handful of light attack aircraft might wind up patrolling DC is a possibility, the idea of it becoming a program to 'train nascent air forces' will never see the light day. Why on earth would a cash-strapped 'air force' even bother with a glass-cockpit equipped turboprop when there are less expensive and far more practical planes in existence. And wouldn't that sort of operation be better performed by Special Operations?

Reply

jumper September 22, 2011 at 7:39 am

Which more practical and less expensive planes would these be? Unless you're planning on re-tooling a P-51 line this is about as cheap and practical as it gets.

Reply

blight September 22, 2011 at 8:37 am

Any indig "air force" is likely to start with the jillions of ex-Soviet Hinds and Hips that found their way across the third world. As for fixed wing, there's always the DEA's armored crop dusters, but modified for firing weapons.

I wonder if the Afghans would qualify as the type of customer the Freedom Fighter was originally intended for.

Reply

tiger September 24, 2011 at 4:17 pm

Actually doing the same role the Skyraider did so well for 2 wars. Fly low, slow, & loiter with more range & firepower than a attack chopper. If your not facing a mig threat, they make sense. They also are cheaper to operate & don't 10,000 ft of concrete.

Reply

drball September 21, 2011 at 11:56 pm

So why do we really need an Air Force any way..BTW under Congress rules the U.S. Army is prohibited from using aircraft with foward firing ordnance any way….So buy these aircraft and cut the Airforce….Win/Win…..Also before some wisea$$ said any thing I mean fixed wing aircraft not helio's….got it…

Reply

William C. September 22, 2011 at 12:45 am

Why do we need an Air Force?

The fact that we've grown accustom to always having air-superiority is the only reason such foolish questions are asked.

Reply

Melcyna September 22, 2011 at 2:46 am

i don’t think there’s anyone with common sense in the world regarding armed forces (whether they enjoy air superiority or not) that would ask such foolish question

Reply

bob September 22, 2011 at 8:19 am

You're an idiot drball.

Reply

blight September 22, 2011 at 8:36 am

Why do we need any military? We have the bomb! The bomb will make the Serbs stop killing the Bosnians! The bomb will make North Korea behave! The bomb will make Iran behave! The Bomb will make Saddam behave! The bomb will make Aidid behave! The bomb will make Osama quake in terror!

Then again, some people have fantasies about dropping nuclear weapons on civilians. Maybe they need therapy.

Reply

Alex September 22, 2011 at 9:31 am

Learn to love The Bomb. lol

Reply

A-10 Loader September 22, 2011 at 12:06 pm

Why you ask? Lets see, the Army looses 40K rounds of ammo at Ft Bragg. You guys cant drive a Humvee without rolling it onto its roof. Cant drive an MRAP without putting it in a ditch. Cant come home from a deployment without someone beating or killing their spouse. Do you really think you can be trusted with multi-million dollar aircraft? I dont….. Oh and before someone starts throwing crap, I lived on Bragg for almost 10 years, have been around Bragg for 22 years after that and have seen it all…….

Reply

major.rod September 22, 2011 at 12:54 pm

It was 14K not 40K rounds. Math not a strong point?

While we are talking about accountability how many nukes has the Air Force lost? While we are on the subject, what about flying aircraft loaded with nukes cross country and not knowing they were on the aircraft until they landed?

BTW, those rolling HMMWVs & MRAPs are happening outside the wire on unimproved roads. Ever been on one? Being "at Bragg" doesn't say much. Not many places to have a rollover on the way to the BX.

Don't throw stones when you live in a glass house.

Reply

blight September 22, 2011 at 2:10 pm

We could do math and compare costs of equipment lost in peacetime due to accidents, failures and the like.

Regarding "beating and killing their spouse", it's kind of unfair considering PTSD hits combat troops disproportionately: could we compare Air Force support personnel to Army support personnel, on the same base at the same time, and see how much wife-beating goes on there?

Reply

SJE September 22, 2011 at 4:40 pm

That's about the lowest thing I've heard in a while. The reason that Army and Marines get PTSD is because they are the ones doing the hard and dirty work, getting maimed and killed on the front lines, for weeks on end.

Reply

STemplar September 22, 2011 at 11:44 pm

You should be ashamed of yourself.

Reply

Sanem September 22, 2011 at 2:43 am

what interests me here is the fact that the T-6 intercepted it's target without it's own radar. AESA is nice and all when on the offensive, but over home territory with plenty of AWACS, ground radar and UAV/satellite coverage, interceptors really don't need such expensive and delicate equipment. better they go for optical and infra-red sensors, it's cheap, reliable and doesn't give away your position

what the USAF needs are UCAV interceptors: take a dirt cheap and reliable engine like the F-100, put it in a cheap and simple delta-wing with plenty of fuel, add 2-4 missiles and maybe a gun-pod, some passive sensors and these'll defend skies 24/7 at a cost as low as $10 million per model, with limited costs for R&D, training, operating or maintenance

the US economy is going down the drain fast, a year from now the F-35 will simply seize to be any option at all. I'd suggest Lockheed to start using the tech they got from it to develop such a cheap interceptor, or Boeing/NG will

Reply

navbm7 September 24, 2011 at 12:14 am

"take a dirt cheap and reliable engine like the F-100, put it in a cheap and simple delta-wing with plenty of fuel, add 2-4 missiles and maybe a gun-pod, some passive sensors and these'll defend skies" good work, you just described the F102 and F-106 Delta Dart/Delta Dagger from the 1950s.
Good intercepter aircraft for bombers but not very agile for dogfights. There is no way the USAF would ever buy these or anything like these again. AF wants the latest and greatest at any cost.

Reply

Michael September 25, 2011 at 6:44 pm

The concept is good, but I doubt they could keep the cost anywhere near $10 million per unit. The MQ-1B Predator is a propeller driven drone and it costs around $20 million per unit! At this point, if they tried to develop a kite, it'd probably end up costing over a million dollars per unit… They don't really try to purchase the cheaper/better unit…think F-22 verses F-35… Just my two cents…

Reply

keeperofhorses November 24, 2011 at 5:53 am

Considering the fact that the Chinise are developing and deploying ther version of a stealth fighter, the more tools that you have in the bag, the better chance that we have on winning, The F 100 is an old aircraft, and not effiecient on fuel. my father worked on that AC I fixed turboprop engines before entering the AF ( retired now…whew!) While every AC has its negative querks, like any weapon system…hell even the computer that you and I are banging away on, we have to keep in mind that bugs have to be worked out, We are human and what we make is not without, as my father put it "gremlins to work out of the machine". That is the way things are.

Reply

test September 22, 2011 at 3:50 am

what interests me here is the fact that the T-6 intercepted it's target without it's own radar. AESA is nice and all when on the offensive, but over home territory with plenty of AWACS, ground radar and UAV/satellite coverage, interceptors really don't need such expensive and delicate equipment. better they go for optical and infra-red sensors, it's cheap, reliable and doesn't give away your position

Reply

blight September 22, 2011 at 8:41 am

Classical interceptor. Just follow the ground controllers instructions to target and destroy it.

Reply

PMI September 25, 2011 at 1:16 am

Read the transcripts of the various conversations between ATCs & NORAD during 9/11…domestic radar coverage isn't as extensive as you'd think.

Reply

blight September 26, 2011 at 12:32 pm

Interesting. You'd think the FAA would've had all the hijacked aircraft in question tracked, as they were leaving Logan Airport and didn't go far before hitting their targets. Then again, the FAA wasn't exactly plugged into NORAD…

Reply

STemplar September 22, 2011 at 3:54 am

I remember NORTHCOM cmmdr mentioning last year he saw a potential role for these aircraft in these missions. Maybe the USCG might be interested or maybe buy a couple three squadrons for customs or border patrol. They've got to be cheaper to fly than Dolphins.

Reply

blight September 22, 2011 at 8:40 am

Indeed, and for those times where you don't need rotary wing you can use a fixed wing turboprop, which is usually a faster platform. It saves the dolphin's airframe hours for the SAR mission, and for when the air platform actually observes a target.

Reply

Sanem September 22, 2011 at 3:54 am

what the USAF needs are UCAV interceptors, an F-100 engine combined with a big delta, some missiles, a gun pod and optical sensors. produced in numbers they could be as cheap as $10 million each. it'll allso be dirt cheap in terms of R&D, training, maintenance and operating. but big weapon companies don't earn much money off cheap equipment, so they prefer diamond-plated stuff like the F-35

not that they'll have much choice in the matter, the way things are going there won't even be money to operate F-16's, never mind to buy brand new F-35's

Reply

blight September 22, 2011 at 8:39 am

What makes you think a UAV won't be "diamond-plated"? UAVs haven't been mated to large, powerful fighter-type engines, nor has the delta design being produced yet (CAD time, wind tunnel time awaits!)

Reply

chaos0xomega September 22, 2011 at 10:45 am

What makes you think they will be as cheap as $10 million each? Because Predators and Global Hawks are in that price range? Unmanned =/= cheap, what makes those systems cheap is that they are light turboprop aircraft that carry primarily optical sensors. You start adding in radar, gunpods, missiles, and all the avionics that go into that, plus the avionics needed to make it able to maneuver effectively to chase down another aircraft, its going to come out to roughly the same cost as a manned aircraft. The life support equipment, etc. on board manned fighters have additional cost, its true, but not 90 million dollars more…

And then there is the tradeoff… you replace the roughly 5-10 millions dollars spent to support the pilots with tens or hundreds of millions, maybe even billions, to put the necessary ground and space based communications equipment in place to support them.

Reply

STemplar September 22, 2011 at 11:48 pm

I think you over estimate the utility of UCAVs for the foreseeable future. The leading edge example right now is the X47/UCLASS program and there is still an open question if they'll even be able to integrate them into carrier ops. Even once they do it's really not much more than a re-usable/re-loadable cruise missile. We are no where close to turning CAS or air dominance over to UCAVs, not even close.

Reply

Letsallbefriends September 22, 2011 at 8:13 am

Leaving aside the vested industry interests and flyboy egos, I wonder whether lots of cheap, already developed turbo-props would be better than a few super-jets for many of the missions that are actually happening around the world – like shooting up the Taliban, sinking pirates and forcing down drug smugglers’ in light aircraft. Does anyone here know how much one of these things costs compared to one predator when all purchase, personnel and running costs are
considered? I know the UAVs can loiter longer because there’s no pilot needing a rest stop so the planes need to rotate more, but you don’t need so many mission control people either if there’s a pilot. Some bean counter must’ve tried to work it out.

Reply

bobdobdob September 22, 2011 at 11:57 am

It has a shark mouth paint job…. Can’t go wrong there

Reply

Locum September 22, 2011 at 12:47 pm

2004, Olympic Games , armed AT-6A NTA's were employed in the air policing task over Greek airspace. There is an annually international conference in Davos, Switzerland.
Attended by the world's most influential leaders.
Air policing here is done with the F-18, F-5 … and Pilatus PC-9.
It is just a matter of time when terrorists are using UAV's with explosives.
In my opinion, slow movers like PC-9, AT-6B or Super Tucano are better suited to intercept slow movers than fast jets.

Reply

Curt September 23, 2011 at 6:00 am

Absolutely. And since every F-16/F-15 pilot should know how to fly a T-6, you could assign a couple of AT-6s to each squadron. And then, when you needed a slow flying plane to chase a Cessna, you could send something that could do the job cheaper at a fraction of the price. Win, Win situation

Think about it,
-No new pilots, the single most expensive thing in an aircraft!
-Better capability to intercept the full range of targets!
-Fewer flight hours on the F-15s and F-16s which will probably pay for the AT-6 by itself.
-Inexpensive manned plane with a pod to support other homeland defense and disaster releief missions.
- A ready made cadre of people to help train foreign nations.

Sure, its a stupid idea, much better to use multiple F-16s to intercept a cessna or escort an errant UAV why you try to regain control.

Reply

major.rod September 22, 2011 at 1:02 pm

I always find it "bothersome" that the Air Force must emphasize the air to air capability of an aircraft designed specifically for CAS. No wonder the Army doubts the Air Force committment to CAS and yet the Air Force blocks any Army attempt to provide its own.

Reply

Riceball September 23, 2011 at 11:35 am

Because there's this little bothersome thing called the Key West Agreements that says the Army is not allowed to operated armed fixed wing aircraft. I'm not sure how much legal force Key West has but it's been in force since around the 50's back when the Air Force first became a separate branch of service and was part of the deal that allowed the Air Force to become its own service branch.

Reply

major.rod September 23, 2011 at 3:08 pm

Very familiar with the Key West Agreement. That piece of paper keeps us from common sense solutions that puts troops lives first vs. protecting a branch's turf.

Reply

Will September 22, 2011 at 3:52 pm

If the ANG can't afford the AT-6 or the Super Tucano for the ASA mission, then maybe the Border Patrol & the CG can for their law enforcement missions. It also gets around potential legal issues for the ANG to go after bad guys within the borders.

Reply

tiger September 24, 2011 at 4:27 pm

Actually it's good fit for the ANG. With A-10 & F-16 retirements, these would be cheaper to operate but still give the part timers flight hours. They can operate from smaller airfields as well. No need for basing a big bases or Airports.

Reply

JSCS September 22, 2011 at 4:13 pm

F-% unsupportable? F-5 totally supportable, parts availability, weapon load, what do you want it to do? A bunch of companies support the F-5, including Northrup Grumman.

Reply

Mike Halvorsen September 22, 2011 at 10:30 pm

For a blog that doesn't want personal attacks, and slander, there seems to be a lot of personal attacks and slander on this topic. Anyway, why a lightweight turboprop, when we already have had something so MUCH better: The venerable A-1 Skyraider (AKA "Sandy", "Spad", and "Able Dog"). I'd bet we could resurrect a few at Davis-Mothan…Just an idea from an old Grunt who benefitted from something with the payload of a B-17, and loiter time to spare…

Reply

tiger September 24, 2011 at 4:31 pm

The Super Tucanco has 40 years of newer tech and in on the shelf now. The A-1's have likely been scraped by now. Same job with newer lighter planes. Why they even bother with the AT-6 is politics.

Reply

major.rod September 25, 2011 at 2:26 am

The AT-6 has very comparable stats and is AMERICAN. Its also in use with the USAF already along with several countries.

Reply

tiger September 25, 2011 at 5:38 am

Lock mart has enough of the pie now. There is no need for a lengthy Competition.

Reply

JSFMIKE September 23, 2011 at 9:58 am

The one problem I see with this AT-6 concept to perform ASA is time and distance. A slow moving Cessna packed with C4 on a suicide mission is coming from the north. The AT-6 on patrol is on the south side of the city. Question: Will it be able to cover the distance in time to prevent the Cessna from hitting its target? It would depend on the delta distance and delta airspeed between the planes. I'd prefer a jet with afterburner to close the distance, make visual contact, attempt radio contact, and then receive permission to shoot down the intruder. That's a lot of things that need to be done before the trigger is pushed. At AT-6 speed, there is so very little time.

Reply

JRL September 23, 2011 at 10:28 am

What you 'prefer' is all very well, but given the improbability of the scenario you envision being actualized, it's extremely unlikely that something as costly to operate as a supersonic jet fighter would even be up there idly tootling around on 'patrol' at $20,000/hr.

IOW, why dream about 24/7 F-16 patrols around every major city? Why not go whole hog with your fantasy and demand that your governor hire the Legion of Superheros to keep your hometown safe from aerial jihadists?

Reply

JtsBari September 26, 2011 at 4:59 pm

Just as improbable as say, a stolen jetliner being used to ram buildings in a major metropolitan area? Which fantasy world are YOU living in?

JSFMIKE has an extremely valid point. On top of that, the AT-6, if forced to scramble, would not be able to cover the same amount of distance as the F-16, or even an A-10C, would. It would also have to get in much closer (taking up precious time) in order to engage an active threat.

While we all like the idea of the AT-6 as a plane to escort errant private pilots, force down drug runners, and maybe even active border patrol, it simply isn't the right tool for everything, and it certainly cannot replace the jet fighters we have patrolling our skies.

Reply

M167A1 September 27, 2011 at 6:39 pm

JSFMIKE has an excellent point.

The logistics of an interception can be complex and its all about the time/distance calculation.

That said I think you misunderstand how this sort of an aircraft would be used. This isn't an interceptor in any more sense than the NYPD Huey is.

I would envision these as belonging to a reserve unit with only a detachment on alert at any one time. They would be stationed near major metropolitan areas and would serve chase light aircraft out of restricted areas and with the proper sensors might replace helicopters in other security roles. These might be more acceptable for this role than a drone due to the "pilot in the loop."

I see this as more of a threat to the "Key West" accords than as an organizational replacement for fast movers, this makes as much sense in Army or Marine Corps Aviation as it dose int he AF.

Reply

major.rod September 23, 2011 at 3:11 pm

You're both right but keep in mind the Air Force is squabbling about buying a measly 20 of these where training and CAS should be their primary roles.

Reply

daveo September 24, 2011 at 2:06 pm

Piper Enforcer anyone, anyone?

Reply

tiger September 24, 2011 at 4:34 pm

Better yet, Burt Rutan's fighter idea.

Reply

Nicky September 24, 2011 at 2:52 pm

What about bringing in the T/A-50 Golden eagle as a compact falcon that can do ASA

Reply

blackavenger45 September 24, 2011 at 5:23 pm

Let the AF do thier thing with the jets and keep the skies clear where necessary. Give the AT-6 to the Army and Marines for CAS, where its really needed without all the million $ electronics. A radio, GPS, targeting sys and LOTS of guns and ordnance with reasonable speed and long loiter time is what they need. The politicians have soured the stew.

Reply

blight September 26, 2011 at 12:33 pm

I wonder if turboprops can be made to take off from marine amphibs….

Reply

SJE September 25, 2011 at 10:21 pm

There is such as thing as the right tool for the job. You don't need an F-22 to check out a Cessna that strayed into restricted airspace.

Plenty of high tech militaries use old technologies. most US firearms are based on technologies that pre-date the Vietnam war, but they WORK. The Brits and Aussies have no intention of giving up bayonets, whose function is to turn a gun into a sharp pointy thing. Right now, US soldiers are being killed by people with low tech weapons: RPGs, AK-47s and IEDs.

Its good for the DOD to invest in high technology, but we seem to spend way too much on high tech solutions to problems that can be solved with existing kit, and for much less $.

Another issue is fuel supply: this is a critical factor in Afghanistan, and one of the US's weak points. If you can do the job with equipment that is less thirsty, you need less convoys coming through Pakistan that are subject to the whims of our "allies" and attacks by the Taliban en route.

Reply

tiger September 26, 2011 at 9:57 am

Since the retirement of the OA-37, Skyraider, OV10, & OV1; there has been a gap in the inventory. Something Cheaper & lighter than a tank killing A-10 but beyond the Rotor performance of the gunships. Few targets require a 30mm DU shell. Drones can not strafe a target. Gunships have speed & altitude limits.

The Idea of only buying 20 planes though does not make me hopeful.

Reply

SJE September 26, 2011 at 11:15 am

If they buy 20 and find out they are useful, there will be pressure to get more. This should be easily scalable given that this is a well established platform.

Reply

blight September 26, 2011 at 12:28 pm

The other option is enduring the "armored vehicle" nightmare of early OIF, where the United States threw billions of dollars into all sorts of random solutions for the IED problem: some were quackery and some were not, but we left the war with a assortment of solutions from a variety of armoring kits to a family of disparate MRAP vehicles that the Army is "stuck with".

I imagine the air force isn't exactly keen on being "stuck with" families of disparate aircraft that it dislikes from the get-go.

Reply

Jerry November 24, 2011 at 10:39 am

As I recall, the Air Force did not want the A-10 and used every underhanded bureaucratic maneuver imaginable to avoid it’s acceptance short of the Air Force generals threatening to hold their breath until they turned blue. It remains the ******* stepchild they would like to go away but the Air Force is unwilling to surrender the mission to the Army. Don’t you just love bureaucracy?

Reply

StrumPanzer September 26, 2011 at 12:26 pm

What they need to bring back is the Mudd fighter program that they were working on in the 80s and 90s. This is what the fighter was made for.

Reply

Nicky November 22, 2011 at 2:53 pm

What ever happen to the F-20 Tigershark. Couldn't we bring that back and use that for ASA in CONUS. We also could use that to Train Foreign Air force as well

Reply

Felix March 28, 2012 at 9:50 am

Several South American contries use Tucano and Super Tucano, plus A-37 to figth drug traffickers ligth aircrafts. This makes some sense as it's difficult for a high performance jet figther to figth such aircrfat (remember the F-16 trying to shoot down a Bronco in Venezuela tv footage). But this is a scenario very far away from the main mission of the USAF. It might fit Customs, Border Patrol or Coast Guard, and even state militias.
An important consideration is that this kind of plane lacks the dash speed of an interceptor, so it's best employed in an offensive role. Like waiting on a known travle route.

Reply

Ideadiaseby May 17, 2012 at 2:36 am

[url=http://cheesecakefactorycouponszone.com/]cheesecake factory coupon[/url]

[url=http://cheesecakefactorycouponszone.com/cheesecake-factory-coupons]cheesecake factory coupon[/url]

Reply

chris September 22, 2011 at 7:06 pm

not a .50cal, thats a 240.

dang gremlins.

Reply

leesea September 25, 2011 at 12:50 am

I think you one needs to consider AT-6 flying the inner circle of DC air space defense, probably NOT by USCG. I don't care who. The USAF handles the outer and has zoomies to do that, but fast movers inside the Beltway is an air control nightmare.

Using AT-6 type a/c would allow interceptiong the general aviation a/c which have been the problem and are the threat.

In addition,using something like an AT-6 would allow ops out of the many smaller airports (quick refuelling) and out of several small military airstrips (better distribution and alternate when Andrews etc are slammend due to ops or wx).

Reply

alex September 23, 2011 at 7:25 am

My bad some of them have the 50cal, probably the Jayhawk.

Reply

Musson1 September 23, 2011 at 9:14 am

Mark The USAF did lose jets attempting to interdict the bi-planes. But, they were not shot down by the bi-planes. Since I am not infalable, yesterday I checked with a retired USAF colonel who flew in Korea and with Robin Olds in Vietnam. He confirmed the USAF lost 3 jets (not to enemy action) trying to interdict the Washing machine Charlie aircraft.

His statement was confirmed by two other friends. One who flew with Ira Bong in WWII and another a former WWII USAF carrier pilot who flew Corsairs.

All three gentlemen live in a retirement community I work for.

You were right. I said ANG when I should have said Naval Reserve Squadrons.

Reply

Musson1 September 23, 2011 at 9:28 am

Jets were not lost to enemy action – but by attempting to fly outside of the operational parameters of the aircraft.

Reply

Leave a Comment

Previous post:

Next post: