Sponsor Message:
Military Aviation & Space Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Usaf Asks For 100 Coin Acft.  
User currently offlineVenus6971 From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 1443 posts, RR: 0
Posted (5 years 3 months 3 weeks 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 7296 times:

http://www.airforcetimes.com/news/20...8/airforce_light_airplane_080309w/

Let the guesses begin. AT-6, Taking old T-37's to refurbish,reengine. I'm thinking all new acft becuase of the 1000 mile unrefueled range.


I would help you but it is not in the contract
10 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineDonnieCS From United States of America, joined Jan 2007, 76 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (5 years 3 months 3 weeks 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 7265 times:

Usaf Launches Coin Light Attack Aircraft (by ThePointblank Jul 31 2009 in Military Aviation & Space Flight)


Charlie - Gulfstream flight mechanic
User currently offlinePar13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 7498 posts, RR: 8
Reply 2, posted (5 years 3 months 3 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 7183 times:

This the same US Air Force that hates the A-10 and has been trying since they first got it to retire the best CAS a/c in their inventory? The Army should get in on this, trade some helo pilots to fly these birds, after all, their primary mission will be to suuport troops on the ground, and since it is likely to be a turbo prop, the Air Froce would willing grant a waiver for Army flying combat a/c.

The time to deploy is pretty short, that says to me that this is an off the shelf purchase and the manufacturer has already been notified that their a/c is the winner.
No way the US military Industrial Complex can design, computer test, build a proof of concept model, prototype, etc. etc. etc. in such a short space of time without billions not already being allocated. I note that no funds are listed in the article, no funds for design, no a/c, no one uses their dime to create a military a/c any more.


User currently offlineArniePie From Belgium, joined Aug 2005, 1265 posts, RR: 1
Reply 3, posted (5 years 3 months 3 weeks 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 7159 times:

How about PILATUS' PC21, license build by Fairchild, they could install a more powerfull engine like they did with the PC6 PORTER and maybe up its external load to 3000 lbs or so.

http://www.pilatus-aircraft.com/html...&NavL4ID=0&NavL5ID=0&NavL6ID=0&L=3




[edit post]
User currently offlineVenus6971 From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 1443 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (5 years 3 months 3 weeks 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 7099 times:

How about dusting off the plans for this Cessna.
http://cessnawarbirds.blogspot.com/2...ssnas-almost-was-jet-traiiner.html
I here this was a great design that beat the pants off the T-6, which more less got the JPATS contract because of Corporate welfare to Raytheon.



I would help you but it is not in the contract
User currently offlinePar13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 7498 posts, RR: 8
Reply 5, posted (5 years 3 months 3 weeks 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 7087 times:

Better solution would be to build the OV-10 Bronco with a more powerful engine. This a/c is going to go down in the weeds to support the troops, a proven airframe with dual engines is probably a safer bet than a single engine a/c.

That's my choice.


User currently offline474218 From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 6340 posts, RR: 9
Reply 6, posted (5 years 3 months 3 weeks 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 7080 times:



Quoting ArniePie (Reply 3):
How about PILATUS' PC21, license build by Fairchild,

That would be hard as Fairchild ceased to exist over five years ago.


User currently offlineLHCVG From United States of America, joined May 2009, 1618 posts, RR: 2
Reply 7, posted (5 years 3 months 3 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 6921 times:



Quoting Par13del (Reply 5):
Better solution would be to build the OV-10 Bronco with a more powerful engine. This a/c is going to go down in the weeds to support the troops, a proven airframe with dual engines is probably a safer bet than a single engine a/c.

I like that. Or even pulling them out of storage (if they haven't been scrapped) and making mods as appropriate to get them somewhat modernized and out quickly. Even though re-engining might take some time, I would think throwing modern com gear, GPS, laser designator, perhaps a special module for any particularly sophisticated ordnance that the Bronco otherwise could not launch/guide/etc, wouldn't be too difficult, at least vs. buying another a/c.


User currently offlineAirRyan From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 2532 posts, RR: 5
Reply 8, posted (5 years 3 months 3 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 6902 times:

If a prop is what you want, you'd bIf a prop is what you want, you'd be hard pressed to beat a P-47D or an A-1 Skyraider...

User currently offlineGDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 13241 posts, RR: 77
Reply 9, posted (5 years 3 months 3 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 6849 times:

Can we predict this?
After a protracted evaluation, after lots of 'gold plating' added to the spec, a winner is chosen after costs have seriously escalated.
But the losing bidders contest it, leading to a re-evaluation, more costs, more delays.

If it survives that, by the time of operational service, the task they were mooted for has changed, or ended.
Or the bad guys got plenty of decent MADPADS, making the type too risky to use.
(Look how the OV-10 got retired, too vulnerable to MANPADS in Desert Storm).


User currently offlinePar13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 7498 posts, RR: 8
Reply 10, posted (5 years 3 months 3 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 6754 times:



Quoting GDB (Reply 9):
(Look how the OV-10 got retired, too vulnerable to MANPADS in Desert Storm).

Any prop flying this mission will be vulnerable, it comes down to how much protection they want to place on the a/c.

Quoting GDB (Reply 9):
But the losing bidders contest it, leading to a re-evaluation, more costs, more delays.

One good thing if they use it is that they do not have to request bids, in this day and age it is cheaper to go without bids, the initial tanker bid was cheaper even though a rip off.
Funny, getting ripped comes out cheaper than going through the process, go figure  Smile


Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Usaf Asks For 100 Coin Acft.
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Military aviation related posts only!
  • Not military related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
Pentagon To Support Usaf Request For 381 F-22s posted Sat Dec 8 2007 09:33:30 by STT757
Usaf Pushing For KC-777 And KC-737 Mix - AW&ST posted Fri Jan 6 2006 22:37:23 by Boeing Nut
Possible Usaf Order For KC-130Js. posted Tue Jan 18 2005 01:04:34 by CX747
Usaf Signs For 60 C-17 posted Fri Aug 16 2002 17:23:48 by Raggi
Usaf Launches Coin Light Attack Aircraft posted Fri Jul 31 2009 21:08:47 by ThePointblank
First C130 For Polish Air Force Ex.70-1273 Usaf posted Wed Mar 25 2009 03:41:11 by KAWA
Usaf Considering Contractors For Aerial Refueling posted Mon Dec 8 2008 20:53:22 by Venus6971
When Is The Hearing For The Usaf Tanker Deal posted Wed May 28 2008 15:59:18 by Dougbr2006
Fate Of "last" (?) 764, Build As E-10 For Usaf? posted Mon Mar 17 2008 12:32:30 by Kaitak
The First A400M For Usaf Topic, Jan 2008 posted Wed Jan 30 2008 07:03:23 by Keesje

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format