View Full Version : USAF OA-X Program testing underway
Grand58742
08-25-17, 09:00
I didn't see a thread on it already. But the light attack/COIN aircraft testing is being conducted right now:
http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/13393/usafs-oa-x-light-attack-experiment-is-looking-more-like-an-international-arms-fair
http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/13218/late-addition-to-the-usafs-light-attack-experiment-sparks-drama-online
http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/the-us-air-forces-oa-x-light-attack-aircraft-really-going-21411
The aircraft:
A-29 Super Tucano (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embraer_EMB_314_Super_Tucano)
https://i.ytimg.com/vi/LkgeladdlaI/maxresdefault.jpg
AT-6B Wolverine (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beechcraft_T-6_Texan_II)
http://defense.txtav.com/-/media/beechcraft-defense/images/at-6/missonready/missionready_irregularwarfare.ashx?h=417&w=700&la=en&hash=FFCC9181068D7A18227945F51B18629DAF607BE1
Textron Scorpion (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Textron_AirLand_Scorpion)
https://www.aopa.org/-/media/images/aopa-main/news-and-media/2016/october/1025_textron_scorpion.jpg?h=491&&w=841&hash=AD785A4482878B06BAECD7EB3FE4DD978F0E424C&la=en
Air Tractor AT-802 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_Tractor_AT-802)
http://cdn.airplane-pictures.net/images/uploaded-images/2016/10/6/789456.jpg
It will be interesting to see if they actually go through with a formal contract and purchase instead of chasing the F-35 "Do Everything" dream. Imagine a cheaper aircraft that's better suited to the kind of low intensity conflicts we've been doing.
Kind of surprised Boeing didn't try to submit an upgraded OV-10D. Seems like it would have been easy to have modified it for the competition.
turnburglar
08-25-17, 11:22
This looks like a prototype A-10. I wish they would just keep those in circulation forever like the B52. Minor upgrades to a more than capable platform.
Except for the Scorpion, they all look like glorified crop dusters.
That said, there's a definitive role for them in ground support. A lot cheaper to procure, maintain and operate than things like the A-10. And don't get me wrong, as an old A-10 crew chief, I certainly have my sympathies for the old bird.
SomeOtherGuy
08-25-17, 12:18
Except for the Scorpion, they all look like glorified crop dusters.
That said, there's a definitive role for them in ground support. A lot cheaper to procure, maintain and operate than things like the A-10. And don't get me wrong, as an old A-10 crew chief, I certainly have my sympathies for the old bird.
No expert here, but it seems like any of these are a sitting duck for an enemy with lightweight SAMs (MANPADs) or even a decent gunner with a .50 BMG or similar heavy machine gun on a pintle mount. In contrast the A-10 has little vulnerability to small arms fire and has several countermeasures against the SAMs. Am I missing something?
Averageman
08-25-17, 12:23
Well if they are dangerous enough and cheap enough and vulnerable to ground fire, who knows, maybe they will have enlisted pilots again?
Just an opinion here, but I don't think you're missing anything here, just asking the wrong question.
It's like saying let's not use Humvees because they are vulnerable to HMG fire, or Stryker because they are vulnerable to RPG. Nothing is ever invulnerable. But you manage the risk and they'll do so with these.
This is a great idea that should have been done years ago. These small planes can stay on station much longer and still carry a ton of ordinance. They are very maneuverable and can get down very low to get right on target.
It is the same concept of SOF using the Little Bird when the Apache is bigger, carries much more firepower, and has better survivability. This would not be the CAS for everyone. But it would have a place.
The bottom one, the Air Tractor, is a crop duster. And if you have ever seen those things fly they can do some amazing things.
Exactly Docsherm.
And let's not forget a little vulnerability didn't stop Huey's in Vietnam
And that the A-1 Skyraider was a great CAS plane in Vietnam.
Singlestack Wonder
08-25-17, 12:34
The P-51 should be resurrected with modern electronics....
In my Air Force magazines, you can't make it through an issue without ads for both the AT-6 and Super Tucano. They both tout leveraging A-10c and MC-12w platforms.
Averageman
08-25-17, 12:43
The P-51 should be resurrected with modern electronics....
I believe they were doing something very much like that in South America for a while.
crusader377
08-25-17, 13:15
The P-51 should be resurrected with modern electronics....
The P-51 was actually a pretty marginal CAS platform even during WWII and Korea. Too lightly built and engine was very prone to damage.
The best option would be an upgraded A-1 Skyraider.
Hah. None of you have ever worked on a big radial engine like in a skyraider, have you?
Skyraider was (emphasis on was) an outstanding aircraft. Let's bring back the garand for our primary rifle too. It was a great weapon too!
Having dealt with a great deal of CAS, from the ground only. I would say that something like the Air Tractor AT-802 would be the best bet. Those things are very maneuverable and can carry a lot of weight while doing it. Those crop-dusters are carrying a crap-ton of weight and can still do things that you would not believe.
Coal Dragger
08-25-17, 14:00
I'll second the crop duster. Ugly as they may be the damn things can turn on a dime and haul a lot of weight while doing it. They don't make money by spraying the wrong area, or taking forever to get lined up for the next pass. Plus I'm pretty sure the design already has a great track record of being able to land on just about any kind of improvised less than ideal runway. So theoretically they could be operated close to the ground elements they support, increasing loiter time, or payload vs fuel on take off.
Plus it looks vaguely like an old Sturmovik.
I'll second the crop duster. Ugly as they may be the damn things can turn on a dime and haul a lot of weight while doing it. They don't make money by spraying the wrong area, or taking forever to get lined up for the next pass. Plus I'm pretty sure the design already has a great track record of being able to land on just about any kind of improvised less than ideal runway. So theoretically they could be operated close to the ground elements they support, increasing loiter time, or payload vs fuel on take off.
Plus it looks vaguely like an old Sturmovik.
I disagree, it looks more like a Junkers Ju 87. :)
Coal Dragger
08-25-17, 14:32
Nyet Comrade! The fascist pig Ju-87 has a prominent chin scoop on the nose, where the glorious Ilyushin has no need of this decadence. This crop duster also has no need of any scoop on front of aircraft, meaning it is strong like bear, and also for it comes from virtuous agricultural proletariat class!
Nyet Comrade! The fascist pig Ju-87 has a prominent chin scoop on the nose, where the glorious Ilyushin has no need of this decadence. This crop duster also has no need of any scoop on front of aircraft, meaning it is strong like bear, and also for it comes from virtuous agricultural proletariat class!
Now that was funny....... :jester:
FromMyColdDeadHand
08-25-17, 19:02
Engines are like balls; one will work, but it's better to have two.
None of those seem to have real armour.
I'd say that they are trying to make it fail by under resourcing it. They'll spend billions on it, get the planes, find out they are death traps and then sell them to some third world country. Then they get the maintenance contract for a generation that is paid for with US aid.
Having dealt with a great deal of CAS, from the ground only. I would say that something like the Air Tractor AT-802 would be the best bet. Those things are very maneuverable and can carry a lot of weight while doing it. Those crop-dusters are carrying a crap-ton of weight and can still do things that you would not believe.
You guys do realize that the AT-802 has a cruise speed of 221 MPH.
You guys do realize that the AT-802 has a top speed of like 200 MPH.
Ok, but how slow can it operate without falling out of the sky? I would not expect it to be doing dog fights in the air about me so I think that would be OK. As long as it can slowly maneuver overhead for a long time and accuracy get ordance on target. I am not expecting it to replace F18 or anything. A dedicated CASS platform that can land and take off in a driveway in the middle of Asscrackastan.
Coal Dragger
08-25-17, 20:03
You guys do realize that the AT-802 has a cruise speed of 221 MPH.
Yeah that is true, but helicopter gunships are even slower, and carry less ordnance.
IIRC wasn't the Skyraider pretty heavily armored and could take a beating? Perhaps an old-time A-10?
SeriousStudent
08-25-17, 21:23
Nyet Comrade! The fascist pig Ju-87 has a prominent chin scoop on the nose, where the glorious Ilyushin has no need of this decadence. This crop duster also has no need of any scoop on front of aircraft, meaning it is strong like bear, and also for it comes from virtuous agricultural proletariat class!
Da, da! :)
Grand58742
08-25-17, 21:35
Having dealt with a great deal of CAS, from the ground only. I would say that something like the Air Tractor AT-802 would be the best bet. Those things are very maneuverable and can carry a lot of weight while doing it. Those crop-dusters are carrying a crap-ton of weight and can still do things that you would not believe.
Just thinking logically (which likely never happened in the fighter mafia in the USAF) I could see them going towards the AT-6 just because of the commonality of parts with the existing fleet.
I do think the Scorpion will generate some foreign military sales to replace some Gen 2/3 fighters (MiGs, F-5 types, etc) as it's cheaper to operate and gives a decent technological upgrade. However, don't see it winning this. But it certainly is interesting as it was built in secret by a company that tends to build prop aircraft (Cessna).
The A-29 is an interesting option especially being the only one with internal guns. However, it's the aerial version of the Ma Deuce which most aircraft armaments are 20mm or larger. It's also not really been used by a nation with "modern" capabilities. But it does have a good track record.
The Air Tractor has a serious payload capability (9,000 lbs) rivaled only by the Scorpion. Though also being an observation craft, I am wondering about pilot visibility as well. Sensors notwithstanding, it doesn't look like the pilot would have a good Mark 1 eyeball vantage unless it's heading straight on. Plus, lack of an ejection seat will probably cause some concern.
It'll be interesting to see which one the USAF pulls...if they do.
HardToHandle
08-26-17, 01:02
I do think the Scorpion will generate some foreign military sales to replace some Gen 2/3 fighters (MiGs, F-5 types, etc) as it's cheaper to operate and gives a decent technological upgrade. However, don't see it winning this. But it certainly is interesting as it was built in secret by a company that tends to build prop aircraft (Cessna).
It'll be interesting to see which one the USAF pulls...if they do.
1) Cessna made 31 flavors of the twin jet Citation for years. They know jets.
2) the Brazilians already won the USAF competition for the Afghan Air Force. Not surprising, but the AO-X is a new competition covering similar attributes.
Cessna also made the T-37 Tweet which evolved into the A-37 Super Tweet so the Scorpion is not their first jet attack plane.
You know who the AT-802 makes sense for is the Army, get rid of that stupid Key West restriction and let the Army operate them. Save a ton of money and add a ton of capability.
Grand58742
08-26-17, 07:37
1) Cessna made 31 flavors of the twin jet Citation for years. They know jets.
2) the Brazilians already won the USAF competition for the Afghan Air Force. Not surprising, but the AO-X is a new competition covering similar attributes.
I said "tended" to make and is known for making props. Let's face it, when a person says Cessna, the first thing that generally pops into anyone's mind is a Skyhawk or another prop aircraft.
As for the USAF and competitions, nobody ever used common sense, but we could hope the fighter mafia doesn't get within five miles of this place. The capabilities of this aircraft have been needed for years and this competition has been stalled for years as well.
Aren't planes with props better for flying in bad weather then jets? Isn't that why they use prop plane to fly into hurricanes because they pull the plane instead of pushing like jet engines do?
The Taliban liked to attack in bad weather/rain and such, knowing that air support would have to leave or not be available at all. If they went with a little prop job plane they could probably stay on station longer in those situations. Right?
NYH1.
Coal Dragger
08-26-17, 15:24
You know who the AT-802 makes sense for is the Army, get rid of that stupid Key West restriction and let the Army operate them. Save a ton of money and add a ton of capability.
Frankly the A-10 should also be given to the Army and Marines. The Air Force wants to be largely irrelevant, so let them.
As for the AT-802, depending on unit price, and short unimproved runway takeoff and landing performance you could assign them directly to a Brigade Combat Team, or Regiment to be directly under the command of the CO of that respective unit. No begging or asking for CAS assets, because they belong to the ground commander.
I wonder if the 30mm chaingun off of an Apache could be adapted to an in wing mount or gun pod? Sling two of those in or under the wings of the AT-802, plus bombs, rockets, and hellfires. What Colonel in his right mind wouldn't want say 4 of those assigned to his unit under his command?
In my opinion a good CAS plane needs a good cannon. Not necessarily the 30mm from the A10 but something bigger than a M2. Like Coal Dragger said, maybe a modified version of the 30mm from the Apache. Or a reduced rate of fire 20mm from the other jets in the Air Force inventory. I dont think 3000 RPM is needed for CAS. Id rather have a plane with a 1000-1500 RPM cannon that gave me more gun runs than one at 3000 RPM that was way overkill.
I can see this whole exercise ending in "thanks for playing, but it's really not what we're looking for right now and the A-10 works just fine".
The A10 30 mm is too big and burns ammo too fast for the 802, something like the M242 Bushmaster chain gun should be able to be pod mounted for softer than MBT targets. Anything too tough for that and you could just use a Hellfire.
I can see this whole exercise ending in "thanks for playing, but it's really not what we're looking for right now and the A-10 works just fine".
I think you might be wrong, I believe one of the drivers for this is it makes sense to give a new pilot a few years flying something cheaper before you stick him in a F22 or F35 cockpit. Those two birds are what like + $40,000 per flight hour, even the A10 is about $18,000 per hour. The cutoff on these is $4,000 per hour which is the Scorpion, the prop jobs are even cheaper. With similar electronics suites a couple of years flying one of these would be very valuable cost effecting training with possible combat experience.
IIRC wasn't the Skyraider pretty heavily armored and could take a beating? Perhaps an old-time A-10?
And relatively speaking, was a massive bird.
A friend's dad was a skyraider pilot in VN...had lots of good memories and good things to say about it.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I can see this whole exercise ending in "thanks for playing, but it's really not what we're looking for right now and the A-10 works just fine".
I don't think so, and I like the the A10. Or maybe better put I appreciate a dedicated CAS airframe. But the A10 is too expensive to fly. And the older they get the more maintenance they need. At some point it's like a $1000 car, just not worth putting money into.
Aircraft production is not something you just turn on, so we can't just order few new A10's.
Question for you recent combat vets:
If you could only choose one, which would it be?
1) an aircraft with a chaingun/minigun
2) an aircraft loaded with a pod or two of Hellfires?
Having never had to rely on one or the other to save my life, if I had to pick I'd say one with a bunch of Hellfires. Reason being that while a fast-firing automatic weapon can lay down an impressive swath of death, Hellfires can be directed against a specific enemy MG position, RPG shooters, etc.
Thoughts?
[obviously both weapon systems onboard one aircraft would be optimal]
Coal Dragger
08-26-17, 21:53
I want all of the above to be honest.
Supposedly the Scorpion can't operate off of unimproved runways. Not sure if that would be a deal breaker in the end or not.
I believe the Super Tucano is already cleared for GBU-12, so it's PGM capable right off the bat.
Direct a Hellfire onto a single MG or RPG position? Wouldn't other indirect fire options be used way before a $110,000 missile? I'm not an expert on military aviation, but I'd suspect these planes would be part of a layered system. So it isn't necessary that they'd be able to survive dogfights with other fighters, hopefully other assets would have detected and eliminated those threats long before its a problem.
Direct a Hellfire onto a single MG or RPG position? Wouldn't other indirect fire options be used way before a $110,000 missile? I'm not an expert on military aviation, but I'd suspect these planes would be part of a layered system. So it isn't necessary that they'd be able to survive dogfights with other fighters, hopefully other assets would have detected and eliminated those threats long before its a problem.
If you have CAS on station during a firefight I'm sure there would be plenty of targets that hadn't been eliminated by that point and new ones popping up as the fight progresses (fluidity of combat and all).
I'd wager that Hellfires have been used in CAS missions many times. It has pinpoint accuracy, like picking off HVT's zooming down a road in a pickup from a drone at 15K feet. It's warhead isn't as large as a JDAM or other air-dropped ordnance.
As I said, a platform capable of carrying a couple pods of Hellfires AND a chaingun/minigun would be optimal. You could lay down suppressive/killing fire en masse and still pick off individual targets.
The British have been using $160,000 Brimstones against pickup trucks and machine gun positions, so I guess the cost isn't a critical factor.
Grand58742
08-27-17, 09:44
I wonder if the OA-X program might get something like this rolling:
http://www.gd-ots.com/81mm_ADM.html
You might figure if you are going in against something like the ops we are fighting in the Stan and other places, smaller and more accurate might be better. And a precision 81mm round might do the trick against an MG position rather than an expensive Hellfire. The GD site doesn't give a description on the "launcher" system, but being the basic rounds are only roughly 10 pounds apiece or so (probably a bit more with the guidance system) it could carry a lot more than a two or four cell launcher system for the Hellfire.
Also, it appears the Tucano is already set up (or others have) to use the Advanced Precision Kill Weapon System version of the Hydra 70 system.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Precision_Kill_Weapon_System
Which either precision application or even an unguided version would come in right handy. I'm also wondering if they could modify the older Zuni rounds for a "bigger bang for the buck" option as well.
Just a lot of options to use on such an aircraft in the CAS/COIN role.
If I had to choose between a good CAS gun and multiple Hellfires I think Id rather have a gun. Hellfires work well at pin point targets. But if I have a platoon size element bedded down in a palm grove in Iraq or a tree line in Afghanistan, I think some good strafing runs would be more effective. Plus I think follow up runs would be quicker and easier with a gun vs gaining enough distance and altitude to laze and fire a missile.
If I had to choose between a good CAS gun and multiple Hellfires I think Id rather have a gun. Hellfires work well at pin point targets. But if I have a platoon size element bedded down in a palm grove in Iraq or a tree line in Afghanistan, I think some good strafing runs would be more effective. Plus I think follow up runs would be quicker and easier with a gun vs gaining enough distance and altitude to laze and fire a missile.
Can a Hellfire be ground-guided onto the target?
Question for you recent combat vets:
If you could only choose one, which would it be?
1) an aircraft with a chaingun/minigun
2) an aircraft loaded with a pod or two of Hellfires?
Having never had to rely on one or the other to save my life, if I had to pick I'd say one with a bunch of Hellfires. Reason being that while a fast-firing automatic weapon can lay down an impressive swath of death, Hellfires can be directed against a specific enemy MG position, RPG shooters, etc.
Thoughts?
[obviously both weapon systems onboard one aircraft would be optimal]
I would want both but if I can only have one I will take some guns any day.
Can a Hellfire be ground-guided onto the target?
I dont know. Though my JTAC buddy has never said anything about that. He has directed ordinance drops via laser before.
Mr. Goodtimes
08-27-17, 18:02
Some things they got right the first time, and I personally think this whole idea is awesome, and is long overdue. What's old is new again.
Hah. None of you have ever worked on a big radial engine like in a skyraider, have you?
Skyraider was (emphasis on was) an outstanding aircraft. Let's bring back the garand for our primary rifle too. It was a great weapon too!
Replace the radials with turbo props, just like the Viking Turbo Beaver.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
The British have been using $160,000 Brimstones against pickup trucks and machine gun positions, so I guess the cost isn't a critical factor.
Right, but how many are being carried, how many are in inventory and how quickly can more be acquired?
Something as slow flying as a prop plane, I wonder about a mini-AC130. The 105mm might be a bit much, but I wonder about a 40 or 20mm cannon for such targets.
FromMyColdDeadHand
08-27-17, 19:16
An OV-10 with PT-6 engines and a slightly bigger wing would be good.
I still think drones will take over these roles.
Please don't give the AF any more ideas for technology that doesn't actually exist yet. I think they kind of have their hands full with the one they have...
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.