F-35 delay drives light attack aircraft interest

[williepete]

With the A-10 getting long in the tooth and nothing on the drawing board, ready to go light attack aircraft may have to fill the gap.

The top two aircraft being considered take us back quite a few decades in capability:

"Both aircraft, combat loaded, are comparable in power-to-weight ratio and wing loading to a combat-loaded P-47D."




The Pentagon Has Two Choices for Light-Attack Planes
An expert in counter-insurgency aircraft explains the options

In mid-2015, after a bruising battle on Capitol Hill over the future of close air support, Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Mark Welsh directed exploration of a future attack aircraft, notionally designated A-X.

Up until then, there had been no equivalent to the A-X program that developed the A-10 Warthog, because the F-35 was intended to replace the A-10 by this time. As a result, none of the advance work required for a new aircraft program has been done. The direction by Welsh caught both the Air Staff and Air Combat Command (ACC) somewhat flat-footed.

Fortunately, substantial work has already been done with respect to light attack aircraft, with respect to ACC’s OA-X concept, the Light Attack Armed Reconnaissance (LAAR) program for the USAF, the Light Air Support (LAS) program for the Afghan National Air Force, the Imminent Fury project and the Air National Guard test program for light attack.

The Pentagon Has Two Choices for Light-Attack Planes


--------------------

 

[shadow355]

What ever they spend money on :

1) Has to be able to carry ordinance just as much if not more than the A-10.

2) The cost of an A-10 is only about 4 million more per unit than the aircraft they are suggesting. Up grading the A-10 "Warthog" would cost less than the NEW aircraft they are suggesting buying.

3) The new aircraft would have to have speed, range and maneuverability.....with ordinance - comparable to the A-10. If not, the Government is investing in an aircraft with less ability and usefulness ; than what they already have. So I do not see a turbo prop aircraft on the horizon. Can you see a turbo prop, " Popping" flares? --- Maybe, but I can't.

4) Aircraft has specific maneuver abilitys at different altitudes. Hence the jet engine being king. Turbo prop aircraft for the most part has only one motor.....and most generally in the front. Jet aircraft have two engines, if one goes down or fails......damaged in combat, you still have another engine to "get home on." Plus if I have not been misinformed in my reading......jet engines at moderate and high altitudes are more fuel efficient, allowing them to maintain more time on the battle field. -2 points for a turbo prop aircraft.

5) The idea of a new aircraft for close air support I believe need more thought if this article is accurate.


Shadow 355

Shadow 355

 

[Steven_R]

It wouldn't be so bad if the AF didn't treat CAS like a red-headed stepchild. They don't want to do it, but don't want the Army to do it either.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

What ever they spend money on :

1) Has to be able to carry ordinance just as much if not more than the A-10.

2) The cost of an A-10 is only about 4 million more per unit than the aircraft they are suggesting. Up grading the A-10 "Warthog" would cost less than the NEW aircraft they are suggesting buying.

3) The new aircraft would have to have speed, range and maneuverability.....with ordinance - comparable to the A-10. If not, the Government is investing in an aircraft with less ability and usefulness ; than what they already have. So I do not see a turbo prop aircraft on the horizon. Can you see a turbo prop, " Popping" flares? --- Maybe, but I can't.

4) Aircraft has specific maneuver abilitys at different altitudes. Hence the jet engine being king. Turbo prop aircraft for the most part has only one motor.....and most generally in the front. Jet aircraft have two engines, if one goes down or fails......damaged in combat, you still have another engine to "get home on." Plus if I have not been misinformed in my reading......jet engines at moderate and high altitudes are more fuel efficient, allowing them to maintain more time on the battle field. -2 points for a turbo prop aircraft.

5) The idea of a new aircraft for close air support I believe need more thought if this article is accurate.


Shadow 355

Shadow 355

The F-16 has ONE engine.

 

[williepete]

The idea of a new aircraft for close air support I believe need more thought if this article is accurate.

What's the old saying about "if" being the biggest word in the English language.

As I was reading Col Pietrucha's article, I couldn't help but think we wouldn't opt for anything off the "light attack" menu. Especially a platform that delivers a similar weight of ordnance as a helicopter and being just as vulnerable. Then I remembered we did just this during the Cold War for low intensity ops with the OA-37B. (A cobbled together monstrosity). I'd never bet against the government making a silly purchase.

 

[shadow355]

I'd never bet against the government making a silly purchase.

Politicians don't have to fly in the darn thing. If they did, it would be a different story.

Throw a politician in an aircraft with the pilot, with only a small amount of ordinance, gets maybe a top speed of 300 knots..... never exceed speed is 270 knots; and tell them that they are getting a ride into a combat zone. I'll bet the politician changes their tune.

Shadow 355

 

[shadow355]

It wouldn't be so bad if the AF didn't treat CAS like a red-headed stepchild. They don't want to do it, but don't want the Army to do it either.

The United States Military.....should have the best that there is.


Shadow 355