Reddevil556
Posts: 155
Joined: Thu Dec 27, 2018 2:09 pm

Re: News on Air Force Light Attack Experiment (OA-X)

Wed Dec 18, 2019 1:35 am

I recommend that SOCOM take over the project and create a fixed wing light attack unit within 169th SOAR. That would really infuriate the institutionally inbred brass. I remember seeing unmarked C-27s flying at a certain airlfield. If JSOC wants it they will find a way. SOCOM and JSOC want the right tools for the job. It isn’t the rank file AF brass that love this concept.
Jumped out of: C130H, C130J, C17A, C212, CH47, and UH60. Bucket list: C160, A400, C2
 
Ozair
Posts: 4630
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 8:38 am

Re: News on Air Force Light Attack Experiment (OA-X)

Mon Feb 10, 2020 1:55 am

Well this confuses the OA-X program even more than it already was. SOCOM is going to push out a requirement for 75 Light attack airframes to support their troops deployed overseas.

US Special Operations plans to buy 75 light attack aircraft for Armed Overwatch

The US Special Operations Command plans on buying 75 fixed-wing aircraft for its just-announced Armed Overwatch programme.

The aircraft are intended for close air support of special operations troops, according to a notice announcing an upcoming industry day posted online 3 February.

...

Initially, Armed Overwatch would be pursued as a prototype initiative to demonstrate the concept, says US Special Operations Command.

If the demonstration phase proves promising enough, US Special Operations Command plans to award a follow-on contract with a base 5-year ordering period, plus a 2-year option, for 75 aircraft and MRO support.

https://www.flightglobal.com/fixed-wing ... 60.article

You would think that SOCOM wouldn't need to run a prototype competition for this and just use the data gained from the USAF work already done although this may open the door for other entrants to come back into the acquisition mix. Perhaps this is just the graceful way the USAF can withdraw now from OA-X and hand the baton on to SOCOM who were likely the ones really interested in this capability anyway.
 
User avatar
kitplane01
Posts: 1402
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2016 5:58 am

Re: News on Air Force Light Attack Experiment (OA-X)

Wed Feb 19, 2020 6:01 am

I just read this whole thread. Thanks for writing it ..

Reading the thread, one would think that attack helo's are doomed. They are slower, and lower, than any light attack plane. I understand one can hide behind a hill in a helo,
1) but at some point you will need to expose your self for long enough to acquire a target (and the enemy can acquire you)
2) in a confused environment, one might hide behind the wrong hill or fall into an enemy trap.

What do the people opposed to the light attack plane think of the attack helo?
 
User avatar
kitplane01
Posts: 1402
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2016 5:58 am

Re: News on Air Force Light Attack Experiment (OA-X)

Wed Feb 19, 2020 6:12 am

Ozair wrote:
An important aspect of CAS though is response to a TIC. The airframe will generally not reside directly over the battlespace in question but have to either launch from the ground to support that TIC or transit from a designated holding location to the TIC location. In that context fast jet speeds are vital and one of the reasons the B-1 did so well above Afghanistan, because it could both loiter and then transit rapidly to the required locations.

A weapons and sensor equipped AT-6/A-27 is limited to around .6 Mach while most of the fast jets can, if necessary, push above Mach one with weapons and sensors attached. That is close to double the response time.


I don't think that's the right picture. But I'm so willing to be educated.

An A-27 is not a replacement for an F-35. One could buy and operate four A-27's for the price of an F-35. If there are four A-27's then each one is twice as close. And that should help response time. Heck, if the closest F-35 is busy helping others, then having four A-27's in the area is much better than one F-35.

Of course I agree that there are things an F-35 can do that four A-27s cannot, but I think the opposite is also true. Like be in two places at once. Or carry more than four times as many rounds for the gun. Or have four sets of eyes in the air.
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 9210
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: News on Air Force Light Attack Experiment (OA-X)

Wed Feb 19, 2020 6:31 am

kitplane01 wrote:
I just read this whole thread. Thanks for writing it ..

Reading the thread, one would think that attack helo's are doomed. They are slower, and lower, than any light attack plane. I understand one can hide behind a hill in a helo,
1) but at some point you will need to expose your self for long enough to acquire a target (and the enemy can acquire you)
2) in a confused environment, one might hide behind the wrong hill or fall into an enemy trap.

What do the people opposed to the light attack plane think of the attack helo?


The simple answer is both. The AH is needed to escort transport helicopters during troop insertions and as a mobile anti-tank system in peer conflicts, the light attack plane is the better overwatch system in low intensity conflicts. I always wonder if the US forces have lost all institutional memory of Vietnam.
 
texl1649
Posts: 1125
Joined: Thu Aug 02, 2007 5:38 am

Re: News on Air Force Light Attack Experiment (OA-X)

Wed Feb 19, 2020 11:23 am

The old P-47/Skyraider/A-10 job of manned fixed wing support is something the USAF has long been loath to invest in, I am glad this is moving forward, if even as a mostly export program. To your point Seahawk, no, I don’t think much ‘memory’ of the challenges of CAS using F-105’s, F-4’s and yes Cessnas and A-1’s/C-47’s exists at this point; the US Military limits the actual force to in truth 20-30 year careers; I think the last Vietnam vet left the pentagon over 5 years ago.

SOCOM is actually very, very motivated to provide support for their operators, and exceptional Helo pilots. Less beurocracy/over-perfect spec’s, they will get the radios working and delivering ordinance where needed.
 
texl1649
Posts: 1125
Joined: Thu Aug 02, 2007 5:38 am

Re: News on Air Force Light Attack Experiment (OA-X)

Wed Feb 19, 2020 7:37 pm

Not directly related but I could see SOCIM interest in the darpa gunslinger missile program as a complement with the project in this thread.

https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/darpa ... unslinger/
 
Ozair
Posts: 4630
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 8:38 am

Re: News on Air Force Light Attack Experiment (OA-X)

Wed Feb 19, 2020 9:02 pm

kitplane01 wrote:
I just read this whole thread. Thanks for writing it ..

Reading the thread, one would think that attack helo's are doomed. They are slower, and lower, than any light attack plane. I understand one can hide behind a hill in a helo,
1) but at some point you will need to expose your self for long enough to acquire a target (and the enemy can acquire you)
2) in a confused environment, one might hide behind the wrong hill or fall into an enemy trap.

What do the people opposed to the light attack plane think of the attack helo?

The attack helo has a place but in a near peer engagement that place is FEBA and no further. Even then I’d expect the attack helo units to take significant casualties.

kitplane01 wrote:


I don't think that's the right picture. But I'm so willing to be educated.

An A-27 is not a replacement for an F-35. One could buy and operate four A-27's for the price of an F-35. If there are four A-27's then each one is twice as close. And that should help response time. Heck, if the closest F-35 is busy helping others, then having four A-27's in the area is much better than one F-35.

We could both craft plenty of scenarios that benefited either the F-35 or the A-27. Response time does play an important role in CAS today over Afghanistan and Iraq/Syria. If you looked at both of those AOs though you see potentially different issues. Iraq/Syria is a more dynamic threat picture with fast emerging contact and time sensitive targeting required in what is probably a higher threat environment. Afghanistan, even though the US are dropped more weapons this last year than all previous years, is less time sensitive and more responsive TIC scenarios. Afghanistan is of course land locked so a logistically much more difficult situation and a geographically more diverse operating environment.

Basing becomes a big issue for positioning assets closer to the fight. All well and good to have four times the number of CAS aircraft available but in doing so you need to base them somewhere and if you want them to match the response timing then you likely need more bases. Bases cost money, are difficult to defend and place additional lives at risk because of the threat.

You also need more pilots to equip the additional aircraft. The USAF is already critically short of pilots for its primary mission aircraft and adding additional low intensity trained pilots to the mix doesn’t improve overall USAF ability to fight and win a conflict in all threat environments.

kitplane01 wrote:

Of course I agree that there are things an F-35 can do that four A-27s cannot, but I think the opposite is also true. Like be in two places at once. Or carry more than four times as many rounds for the gun. Or have four sets of eyes in the air.

Also agree there are things an A-27 is likely better suited to than an F-35. Fighters, and bombers, make great show of force assets compared to small turbo prop CAS aircraft and not every TIC requires a weapon to be dropped. The number of rounds is somewhat immaterial, the gun is little used in CAS today compared to dropping PGMs.

Fighters jets, while costing more, also have other benefits like lifting higher quantities of munitions, flying those munitions further, being refueled in the aircraft to extend mission timing and most importantly, being able to operate in higher intensity conflicts where an A-27 simply wouldn’t be survivable. That threshold isn’t high, once suitable and sufficient AAA/MANPADS enter the threat environment a fast jet becomes significantly more survivable and the turbo prop CAS planes and attack helos go home. (pretty sure I have quoted the post Vietnam report in this thread demonstrating how an increased air threat forced these aircraft out of the CAS role).

seahawk wrote:
I always wonder if the US forces have lost all institutional memory of Vietnam.

Nope, plenty of knowledge and understanding of Vietnam. The USAF has been fighting a CAS war for the last 19 years. They have a very good understanding of CAS and have developed their systems and doctrine to be very effective in that environment.

texl1649 wrote:
The old P-47/Skyraider/A-10 job of manned fixed wing support is something the USAF has long been loath to invest in, I am glad this is moving forward, if even as a mostly export program. To your point Seahawk, no, I don’t think much ‘memory’ of the challenges of CAS using F-105’s, F-4’s and yes Cessnas and A-1’s/C-47’s exists at this point; the US Military limits the actual force to in truth 20-30 year careers; I think the last Vietnam vet left the pentagon over 5 years ago.

I don’t agree. The USAF is tasked with winning air campaigns that cover both high and low intensity conflicts. Lacking the budgets of the Cold War I can see why they fight the CAS conflict the way they do. You have one USN aviator who has shot down an adversary aircraft since 2003, while you have literally thousands of aviators/pilots who have dropped A2G weapons. The USAF has multiple exercises every year based on CAS scenarios, is a strong proponent of the JTAC scheme which is pivotal to CAS operations today and for most USAF fighter units CAS proficiency is a key training outcome. Additionally the amount of money and knowledge that flowed into ISR to support the CAS fight should also demonstrate how important the USAF saw this role.

texl1649 wrote:
SOCOM is actually very, very motivated to provide support for their operators, and exceptional Helo pilots. Less beurocracy/over-perfect spec’s, they will get the radios working and delivering ordinance where needed.

I wouldn’t expect the solution to the SOCOM requirement to necessarily be an AT-6/A-27. USAF Light Attack via OA-X is now dead and buried but armed overwatch, as defined below, being run by SOCOM will be a different competition with different intent.

Armed overwatch will provide special operators deployable and sustainable manned aircraft systems fulfilling close air support (CAS); precision strike; and intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) in austere and permissive environments. It will also fulfil armed reconnaissance, strike co-ordination and reconnaissance, and airborne forward air control.

https://www.janes.com/article/94311/top ... -overwatch

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: angad84 and 52 guests

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos