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.”
{ 108 comments… read them below or add one }
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!"
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"
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."
All started with the Key West Accord, and of course IF someone told Congress to change that it would proabably take them FIVE years~
whats even worst is that the coast guard is protecting the skies over DC
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.
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?
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!
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?
Rember the P-51 based turboprop powered Enforcer.
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.
That P51 in Reno didn't look all that impressive.
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.
In case there was any doubt that we are on the way to becoming a third world country; Turboprop Interceptors!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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…
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.
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
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"…
Look up Lt. Guy Bordelon Jr. and I believe you will see that I was correct.
The USAF lost several Jets attempting to down 'Bed Check Charlies' in Korea. And, the Corsairs were requested to handle the slower bi-planes.
Are you saying the jets were shot down by these planes???????
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 $.
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????
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.
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!
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.
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.
Trying to imagine the world where the Air Force lost helicopters because they were "least qualified" to support things with rotor blades.
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.
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.
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.
Am I the Only one…..
Gheez I just can't believe this piece!
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?
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.
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.
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.
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…
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.
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
You're an idiot drball.
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.
Learn to love The Bomb. lol
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…….
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.
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?
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.
You should be ashamed of yourself.
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
"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.
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…
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.
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
Classical interceptor. Just follow the ground controllers instructions to target and destroy it.
Read the transcripts of the various conversations between ATCs & NORAD during 9/11…domestic radar coverage isn't as extensive as you'd think.
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…
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.
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.
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
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!)
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.
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.
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.
It has a shark mouth paint job…. Can’t go wrong there
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.
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.
Ugh, coasties on patrol at the capitol, sigh politics, sure I could understand if it's an emergency or there's an active threat, or even ajusting the flight path for increased surveilence while enrout from a to b. But if anything goes down and say they have to take a small plane out and the (random military branch) is to far out to help, they are woefully unprepared. Yes they do have a 50cal machinegun, but it is fired from the side door, with an admittidly great field of fire, so if they need to kill the bogey they'll have to find a good angle to do it from, all while the bogey gets closer to his target (I figure he's dodging now as well).
Also here's a good pic of how the 50cal is mounted on a coasty helo, you're looking forward on the helo. http://sfcitizen.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010…
Any and all spelling and/or grammar errors shall be blamed on gremlins.
not a .50cal, thats a 240.
dang gremlins.
My bad some of them have the 50cal, probably the Jayhawk.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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…
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.
The AT-6 has very comparable stats and is AMERICAN. Its also in use with the USAF already along with several countries.
Lock mart has enough of the pie now. There is no need for a lengthy Competition.
on a UCAV jet fighter: yes it could cost as low as $10 million, if built in large numbers. that strategy has worked for the F-16 and was supposed to work for the F-35. But where these programs where multi-mission, highly advanced aircraft, a UCAV fighter would be little more than a re-usable cruise missile
the airframe and engine would be very cheap: combining a known engine like the F-100 with a basic airframe is easy and low cost to develop
but the biggest boon would be that you re-use many assets that have already been developed and paid for by other aircraft programs, like the F-35. you could use its wheels, optical sensors, diagnostic system, airframe… which would drive down the cost for all these things, making the F-35 cheaper in the process. but you wouldn't be spending about $300 million (all cost included) to intercept lost Cessna's
you'd do the same with the software and control consoles, NG seems to be the leader in this field, but Boeing and LMT are working on their own projects. they could just transfer said software from one airframe to another, kind of like copy/pasting a virtual pilot. NG has already proven this to be possible, copying 90% of its Fire Scout architecture to create the Fire-X
and this is only in 2011: the next decade is going to explode in terms of computing power, today's super-computers are going to be our cell phones 10 years from now. just imagine what a UCAV will be capable of by than
but like I said, this is all irrelevant if you look at the current economic situation. I think the USAF will be buying a lot of T-6's in 2013, and little else…
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
Piper Enforcer anyone, anyone?
Better yet, Burt Rutan's fighter idea.
What about bringing in the T/A-50 Golden eagle as a compact falcon that can do ASA
You know Burt Rutan's ARES would be a really good concept to bring back for this mission. http://youtu.be/zG9LlHcX8lg
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.
I wonder if turboprops can be made to take off from marine amphibs….
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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
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.
[url=http://cheesecakefactorycouponszone.com/]cheesecake factory coupon[/url]
[url=http://cheesecakefactorycouponszone.com/cheesecake-factory-coupons]cheesecake factory coupon[/url]
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.
Jets were not lost to enemy action – but by attempting to fly outside of the operational parameters of the aircraft.