LightningZ71
Posts: 483
Joined: Sat Aug 27, 2016 10:59 pm

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

Mon Feb 04, 2019 9:37 pm

The DOD still needs something that can conduct CAS for less money per flight hour than what they are currently using. They have effectively shit canned the current project. The only place to go from here is a MINOR revision of the T-X that adds the ability to mount the external cannon of the F-35 B/C in a nonstealth shell with an expanded capacity ammo store. Aside from the avionics changes, it shouldn't need much else to essentially be a modern A4. Since it was designed to have low cost per flight hour, it's already ahead of the game, though it'll still be much more expensive to operate than the crop dusters.
 
ThePointblank
Posts: 3203
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:39 pm

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

Tue Feb 05, 2019 2:31 am

keesje wrote:
Ozair wrote:
keesje wrote:

I don't think 2030 EIS is ok.. Still I can understand Air Forces preferring jets. Helicopters and Turbo props are noisy, giving the adversaries time to get out of their caves and pull the nets of their DShK's.

You are always good for a laugh Keesje, a DShK tops out at about 4,000 ft so plenty of air above for the RW and turboprops. The USAF will still have plenty of jet aircraft left to deploy to areas where it suits and leave OA-X to those areas it suits.


The CAS mission requires you to come down to do the job, also for aircraft that can fly much higher and faster.

Image
A10

Having two engine redundancy, speed and being more quiet dramatically improves survival of your crew, or their willingness to get in. The DShK might not be the ideal weapon for AA, massive quantity & availability compensates a lot, apparently.


No, it doesn't; see JP 3-09.3:
https://fas.org/irp/doddir/dod/jp3_09_3.pdf

2. Close Air Support Overview
a. CAS is air action by fixed-wing (FW) and rotary-wing (RW) aircraft against hostile targets that are in close proximity to friendly forces and requires detailed integration of each air mission with the fire and movement of those forces. All fires should support the joint force commander’s (JFC’s) objectives, guidance, and priorities.
b. CAS is planned and executed to support ground tactical units. CAS execution is tightly integrated at the tactical level with the fire and maneuver of supported ground forces. The air apportionment and allocation process for CAS occurs at the operational level. CAS planning focuses on providing timely and accurate fires in support of friendly forces in close proximity to the enemy.
c. CAS can be conducted at any place and time friendly forces are in close proximity to enemy forces. The word “close” does not imply a specific distance; rather, it is situational. The requirement for detailed integration because of proximity, fires, or movement is the determining factor. At times, CAS may be the best means to exploit tactical opportunities in the offense or defense. CAS provides fires to destroy, disrupt, suppress, fix, harass, neutralize, or delay enemy forces.
 
Ozair
Posts: 4178
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 8:38 am

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

Tue Feb 05, 2019 2:38 am

ThePointblank wrote:

No, it doesn't; see JP 3-09.3:
https://fas.org/irp/doddir/dod/jp3_09_3.pdf

Ha, beat me to it. As the doctrine clearly states, CAS is an effect that can be accomplished by a host of different aircraft. The issue is not the platform that delivers the weapon but the effect the weapon creates on the ground to the supported unit.

CAS experiences in Vietnam also showed how the presence of ground based air defence pushed the aircraft up above 10k ft but CAS still continued. Today the many and varied small air launched precision weapons allow CAS to be done from all altitudes and from many different platforms.
 
Reddevil556
Posts: 82
Joined: Thu Dec 27, 2018 2:09 pm

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

Tue Feb 05, 2019 3:07 am

Ozair wrote:
ThePointblank wrote:

No, it doesn't; see JP 3-09.3:
https://fas.org/irp/doddir/dod/jp3_09_3.pdf

Ha, beat me to it. As the doctrine clearly states, CAS is an effect that can be accomplished by a host of different aircraft. The issue is not the platform that delivers the weapon but the effect the weapon creates on the ground to the supported unit.

CAS experiences in Vietnam also showed how the presence of ground based air defence pushed the aircraft up above 10k ft but CAS still continued. Today the many and varied small air launched precision weapons allow CAS to be done from all altitudes and from many different platforms.


Precisely, the layered system works well depending on enemy assets. You apply the most effective weapon system based on the enemy's capabilities. If you can, you use low and slow as they can be the most cost effective and lethal as far as effectiveness of their relative target.
Jumped out of: C130H, C130J, C17A, C212, CH47, and UH60. Bucket list: C160, A400, C2
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 13121
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

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

Tue Feb 05, 2019 8:29 am

Reddevil556 wrote:
Ozair wrote:
ThePointblank wrote:

No, it doesn't; see JP 3-09.3:
https://fas.org/irp/doddir/dod/jp3_09_3.pdf

Ha, beat me to it. As the doctrine clearly states, CAS is an effect that can be accomplished by a host of different aircraft. The issue is not the platform that delivers the weapon but the effect the weapon creates on the ground to the supported unit.

CAS experiences in Vietnam also showed how the presence of ground based air defence pushed the aircraft up above 10k ft but CAS still continued. Today the many and varied small air launched precision weapons allow CAS to be done from all altitudes and from many different platforms.


Precisely, the layered system works well depending on enemy assets. You apply the most effective weapon system based on the enemy's capabilities. If you can, you use low and slow as they can be the most cost effective and lethal as far as effectiveness of their relative target.


If you can't beat them, confuse them? The low tech, low level environment where these light attack aircraft operate in, makes them vulnerable for ground fire air of many kinds in many places. Doing surveillance, finding targets, firing machine guns isn't done from 10k ft.

Image
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
Reddevil556
Posts: 82
Joined: Thu Dec 27, 2018 2:09 pm

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

Tue Feb 05, 2019 12:55 pm

It does make them vulnerable, but that is warfare. At some point you have to be willing to take risks. 20th century warfare shows us the myth that AirPower alone isn’t effective in disuading an enemy force. At some point in time you need boots on the ground to direct the attacks and make direct contact with the enemy. It’s risky, but the historical evidence speaks for itself.
Jumped out of: C130H, C130J, C17A, C212, CH47, and UH60. Bucket list: C160, A400, C2
 
Ozair
Posts: 4178
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 8:38 am

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

Tue Feb 05, 2019 10:59 pm

keesje wrote:
Reddevil556 wrote:
Ozair wrote:
Ha, beat me to it. As the doctrine clearly states, CAS is an effect that can be accomplished by a host of different aircraft. The issue is not the platform that delivers the weapon but the effect the weapon creates on the ground to the supported unit.

CAS experiences in Vietnam also showed how the presence of ground based air defence pushed the aircraft up above 10k ft but CAS still continued. Today the many and varied small air launched precision weapons allow CAS to be done from all altitudes and from many different platforms.


Precisely, the layered system works well depending on enemy assets. You apply the most effective weapon system based on the enemy's capabilities. If you can, you use low and slow as they can be the most cost effective and lethal as far as effectiveness of their relative target.



keesje wrote:
If you can't beat them, confuse them?

Keesje the only one confused here is you. You keep changing the scenario you have in mind while maintaining an inaccurate understanding of what CAS actually is.

keesje wrote:
The low tech, low level environment where these light attack aircraft operate in, makes them vulnerable for ground fire air of many kinds in many places. Doing surveillance, finding targets, firing machine guns isn't done from 10k ft.

So Keesje which is it? Are we talking a low tech low threat environment such as Afghanistan, where the air threat for CAS aircraft was generally regarded as low. In those scenarios a light attack aircraft, ala AT-6, is sufficient and obviously the CAS assets don’t have to remain above 10k ft.

The 10k ft reference was to Vietnam, as you can clearly read in the post you quoted. The Vietnam scenario saw air threat increased to the point that in 1972 slow CAS fixed wing and RW couldn’t operate below 10,000 ft due to the threat.

In case you need the reference again it is found in AFD 110323-037 and has the following quote,
To make matters worse, the North Vietnamese brought in many sophisticated AA weapons, including multiple-barrel 37mm and twin-barrel 57mm guns, plus SA-7 strella surface-to-air missiles. This array of firepower compelled the low-flying AC-ll9K's and Army cobra helicopter gunships to move out. Forward air controllers in the slow-moving ov-10's and 0-2Ars likewise found low-altitude work too risky. They went to above 10,000 feet AGL where the strellas and AA fire lost their punch.

Jet strike pilots found the shoulder-fired strellas less of a problem than the heavy concentrations of AA fire around An Loc. To evade the SA-7, the pilot kept airspeed beyond 450 knots and pulled 4 Gs in a tight climbing turn to above 10,000 feet AGL. On the other hand, the mass fire from 37mm, 57mm, and 85mm guns often required him to release his bombs from 6,500-7,000 feet. This somewhat diminished accuracy.


Note the diminished accuracy is much less of a problem now for Western CAS that is dominated by precision guided munitions and better integration between ground and air units.
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 13121
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

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

Wed Feb 06, 2019 3:28 am

Ozair wrote:
keesje wrote:
Reddevil556 wrote:

Precisely, the layered system works well depending on enemy assets. You apply the most effective weapon system based on the enemy's capabilities. If you can, you use low and slow as they can be the most cost effective and lethal as far as effectiveness of their relative target.



keesje wrote:
If you can't beat them, confuse them?

Keesje the only one confused here is you. You keep changing the scenario you have in mind while maintaining an inaccurate understanding of what CAS actually is.

keesje wrote:
The low tech, low level environment where these light attack aircraft operate in, makes them vulnerable for ground fire air of many kinds in many places. Doing surveillance, finding targets, firing machine guns isn't done from 10k ft.

So Keesje which is it? Are we talking a low tech low threat environment such as Afghanistan, where the air threat for CAS aircraft was generally regarded as low. In those scenarios a light attack aircraft, ala AT-6, is sufficient and obviously the CAS assets don’t have to remain above 10k ft.

The 10k ft reference was to Vietnam, as you can clearly read in the post you quoted. The Vietnam scenario saw air threat increased to the point that in 1972 slow CAS fixed wing and RW couldn’t operate below 10,000 ft due to the threat.

In case you need the reference again it is found in AFD 110323-037 and has the following quote,
To make matters worse, the North Vietnamese brought in many sophisticated AA weapons, including multiple-barrel 37mm and twin-barrel 57mm guns, plus SA-7 strella surface-to-air missiles. This array of firepower compelled the low-flying AC-ll9K's and Army cobra helicopter gunships to move out. Forward air controllers in the slow-moving ov-10's and 0-2Ars likewise found low-altitude work too risky. They went to above 10,000 feet AGL where the strellas and AA fire lost their punch.

Jet strike pilots found the shoulder-fired strellas less of a problem than the heavy concentrations of AA fire around An Loc. To evade the SA-7, the pilot kept airspeed beyond 450 knots and pulled 4 Gs in a tight climbing turn to above 10,000 feet AGL. On the other hand, the mass fire from 37mm, 57mm, and 85mm guns often required him to release his bombs from 6,500-7,000 feet. This somewhat diminished accuracy.


Note the diminished accuracy is much less of a problem now for Western CAS that is dominated by precision guided munitions and better integration between ground and air units.


Amazingly you make it sounds like there´s different specified doctrines to choose from and the environment will adjust to flight specifics, while it is the other way around. If you are faster and quieter and have engine redundancy, it enlarges the number of situations you can operate more safely. Vietnam saw slow, low moving aircraft and helicopters shot down by the thousands. Mostly due to unsophisticated anti aircraft guns. Today losses are a lot harder to deny, the videos are online before you can say it is unknown or technical.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_aircraft_losses_of_the_Vietnam_War
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
Reddevil556
Posts: 82
Joined: Thu Dec 27, 2018 2:09 pm

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

Wed Feb 06, 2019 4:18 am

It is still a balance of risk and effectiveness. CAS in general is best when it’s low and slow. High and fast isn’t really CAS, it becomes tactical bombing. But CAS has been needed in every war since WWI and as long as nations are willing to us military force, they will be taking the risks of using CAS.
Jumped out of: C130H, C130J, C17A, C212, CH47, and UH60. Bucket list: C160, A400, C2
 
Ozair
Posts: 4178
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 8:38 am

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

Wed Feb 06, 2019 5:12 am

keesje wrote:
Amazingly you make it sounds like there´s different specified doctrines to choose from and the environment will adjust to flight specifics, while it is the other way around.

Keesje, again you are missing the point. The threat defines how the CAS aircraft operates but the point of CAS is not what aircraft delivers the load from what altitude, it is all about the effect the CAS has on the ground situation.

keesje wrote:
If you are faster and quieter and have engine redundancy, it enlarges the number of situations you can operate more safely.

So? The USAF didn’t want that in this competition, they specifically down selected the AT-6 and the A-29 for a reason. While they apparently have reassessed what they want out of OA-X it is primarily driven by budget constraints.

keesje wrote:
Vietnam saw slow, low moving aircraft and helicopters shot down by the thousands. Mostly due to unsophisticated anti aircraft guns. Today losses are a lot harder to deny, the videos are online before you can say it is unknown or technical.

Keesle linking to a wiki page on Vietnam losses is completely irrelevant. How many of those were involved in CAS missions at the time? That is the discussion we are having, not about aircraft overall kill rates in Vietnam. There is a distinct difference that you need to grasp. As for the stats, I have posted them many times on this forum and if you actually took the time to read the above quoted report which is titled “The Air Force In South East Asia: Tactics and Techniques for Close Air Support Operations 1961- 1973” you would see how CAS changed as the threat changed.
 
Ozair
Posts: 4178
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 8:38 am

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

Wed Feb 06, 2019 5:31 am

Reddevil556 wrote:
It is still a balance of risk and effectiveness. CAS in general is best when it’s low and slow. High and fast isn’t really CAS, it becomes tactical bombing. But CAS has been needed in every war since WWI and as long as nations are willing to us military force, they will be taking the risks of using CAS.

The doctrine is very clear that CAS is support to ground forces who are in proximity to enemy forces that requires coordination. It doesn’t matter where that support comes from, be it B-52 or MQ-9, for it to be CAS when the goal and situation is the above.

You could define CAS as a subset of tactical bombing with the other main type being Air Interdiction. Essentially the proximity and the requirement for ground air coordination is the distinction between the two.
Air interdiction (AI) is defined as “air operations conducted to divert, disrupt, delay, or destroy the enemy’s military potential before it can be brought to bear effectively against friendly forces, or to otherwise achieve objectives that are conducted at such distance from friendly forces that detailed integration of each air mission with the fire and movement of friendly forces is not required.

https://www.doctrine.af.mil/Portals/61/ ... on-Fun.pdf
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 1581
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

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

Wed Feb 06, 2019 8:20 am

This program is a complete waste of money.

It results in excessive capability overlap between the existing drones and manned jets. The F-35 and existing drones can perform any mission this aircraft could do.

Excessive capability overlap is great in high threat environments as it gives you options. However this manned aircraft could never operate in a high threat environment.

In a low threat environment you do not need excessive capability overlap. If the drone took an extra 10 seconds to ID a target that is no big deal in a low intensity conflict.

This manned CAS aircraft does not save money in a low intensity conflict. For example if 24 hour CAS was required in a 1000x1000km combat area you might require 20 of these manned CAS aircraft. 10 Reapers could cover the same area for less cost as they have greater endurance. With the money saved you could have a single F-35 fueled and armed with a pilot on alert and probably still be cheaper than the 20 manned CAS aircraft. The existing drones and F-35.

The 1000kg Predator, 5000kg Reaper and 9000kg semi-stealthy Avenger provide an excellent low-medium-high mix.

In the highest threat environment you could have 50 Predators, 20 Reapers, 5 Avengers and 2 F-35's in the air 24 hours a day dedicated to CAS, recon and tactical bombing. You can get eyes in the sky within minutes and the available weapons capability increases as the larger platforms arrive on scene.
 
Reddevil556
Posts: 82
Joined: Thu Dec 27, 2018 2:09 pm

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

Wed Feb 06, 2019 12:03 pm

Ozair wrote:
Reddevil556 wrote:
It is still a balance of risk and effectiveness. CAS in general is best when it’s low and slow. High and fast isn’t really CAS, it becomes tactical bombing. But CAS has been needed in every war since WWI and as long as nations are willing to us military force, they will be taking the risks of using CAS.

The doctrine is very clear that CAS is support to ground forces who are in proximity to enemy forces that requires coordination. It doesn’t matter where that support comes from, be it B-52 or MQ-9, for it to be CAS when the goal and situation is the above.

You could define CAS as a subset of tactical bombing with the other main type being Air Interdiction. Essentially the proximity and the requirement for ground air coordination is the distinction between the two.
Air interdiction (AI) is defined as “air operations conducted to divert, disrupt, delay, or destroy the enemy’s military potential before it can be brought to bear effectively against friendly forces, or to otherwise achieve objectives that are conducted at such distance from friendly forces that detailed integration of each air mission with the fire and movement of friendly forces is not required.

https://www.doctrine.af.mil/Portals/61/ ... on-Fun.pdf


I agree in the doctrine, but I am speaking more from personal experience. Hence why the A10 has lasted so long.
Jumped out of: C130H, C130J, C17A, C212, CH47, and UH60. Bucket list: C160, A400, C2
 
Reddevil556
Posts: 82
Joined: Thu Dec 27, 2018 2:09 pm

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

Wed Feb 06, 2019 12:07 pm

RJMAZ wrote:
This program is a complete waste of money.

It results in excessive capability overlap between the existing drones and manned jets. The F-35 and existing drones can perform any mission this aircraft could do.

Excessive capability overlap is great in high threat environments as it gives you options. However this manned aircraft could never operate in a high threat environment.

In a low threat environment you do not need excessive capability overlap. If the drone took an extra 10 seconds to ID a target that is no big deal in a low intensity conflict.

This manned CAS aircraft does not save money in a low intensity conflict. For example if 24 hour CAS was required in a 1000x1000km combat area you might require 20 of these manned CAS aircraft. 10 Reapers could cover the same area for less cost as they have greater endurance. With the money saved you could have a single F-35 fueled and armed with a pilot on alert and probably still be cheaper than the 20 manned CAS aircraft. The existing drones and F-35.

The 1000kg Predator, 5000kg Reaper and 9000kg semi-stealthy Avenger provide an excellent low-medium-high mix.

In the highest threat environment you could have 50 Predators, 20 Reapers, 5 Avengers and 2 F-35's in the air 24 hours a day dedicated to CAS, recon and tactical bombing. You can get eyes in the sky within minutes and the available weapons capability increases as the larger platforms arrive on scene.


Simple answer is this. Afghanistan and Syria taught us drones alone aren’t ready to remove pilots yet. They are coming along rapidly and may be exclusively in that role in 20 years. But for now the need remains for humans pilots in the CAS role.
Jumped out of: C130H, C130J, C17A, C212, CH47, and UH60. Bucket list: C160, A400, C2
 
User avatar
smithbs
Posts: 295
Joined: Wed May 17, 2017 6:09 pm

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

Wed Feb 06, 2019 3:56 pm

CAS for Afghanistan is unique in that:
1. The anti-aircraft threat is currently low (although an out-of-state actor could change this for the paltry sum of a couple million $$),
2. The Afghan Air Force can't operate anything remotely complicated, which rules out most if not all current Western platforms.
3. They are not as loss-averse as Western air forces.

In their case, an armed turboprop is probably the only way to get CAS in a sustainable fashion. But if any of those three points changes, then they'll have to park them and do something else. Such is the danger of a niche application: the risk of being parked because the delicate formula changed.

A CAS platform needs to be able, while being coached by a FAC, to do the following:
1. Precisely deliver the right munition to the right place.
2. Observe the tactical situation.

From the beginning of aviation until just recently, you had to be low and slow in order to do this for both accuracy and to be able to see with the Mk 1 eyeball. This includes everything from P-47 to A-10. But today, if you can afford a LITENING pod, a F-16 and some JDAMs or SDBs, then you don't need to be so low and slow.
 
Ozair
Posts: 4178
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 8:38 am

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

Wed Feb 06, 2019 8:56 pm

Reddevil556 wrote:

I agree in the doctrine, but I am speaking more from personal experience. Hence why the A10 has lasted so long.

Those two points are not logically linked. The A-10 has lasted so long only because the USAF invested in it. Had it not received the C upgrade and the new wings it would have been retired years ago for both fatigue and capability/interoperability issues. While the A-10 is a good CAS aircraft it operated only a subset of all CAS missions over Afghanistan, other platforms provided just as effective CAS support. For me the best feature of the A-10 is actually the rough field capability which sets it apart from other USAF fighter/attack aircraft.
 
Reddevil556
Posts: 82
Joined: Thu Dec 27, 2018 2:09 pm

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

Wed Feb 06, 2019 9:51 pm

Ozair wrote:
Reddevil556 wrote:

I agree in the doctrine, but I am speaking more from personal experience. Hence why the A10 has lasted so long.

Those two points are not logically linked. The A-10 has lasted so long only because the USAF invested in it. Had it not received the C upgrade and the new wings it would have been retired years ago for both fatigue and capability/interoperability issues. While the A-10 is a good CAS aircraft it operated only a subset of all CAS missions over Afghanistan, other platforms provided just as effective CAS support. For me the best feature of the A-10 is actually the rough field capability which sets it apart from other USAF fighter/attack aircraft.


Sorry my post was a bit scattered, it made sense in my head. My train of thought was the brass makes the doctrine historically and there has been a general trend to make CAS more high tech. There have been several moments the AF was on the verge of canning the aircraft. However the plane has endured and has been very effective in the battlefield that past 17 years. While aircraft like the F16 and other multirole aircraft can do CAS well, there still is a need for the low and slow based off of operational mission sets.
Jumped out of: C130H, C130J, C17A, C212, CH47, and UH60. Bucket list: C160, A400, C2
 
Ozair
Posts: 4178
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 8:38 am

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

Wed Mar 13, 2019 10:41 pm

The on again off again Light Attack program has moved on with the expected acquisition of a few more aircraft to continue the assessment. Looks like they have some funds remaining from the program that they can use to continue the experimentation.

The aircraft will be split between Nellis and Hurlburt with the clear intent to get feedback from Special Forces and Air Force FAC although I’m a little confused on why they need that. I would have though there was sufficient experience operating with light attack platforms that this wasn’t necessary but I guess it continues to kick the can along.

Air Force to buy handful of light-attack planes, but will a bigger program follow?

The U.S. Air Force will procure a handful of A-29 Super Tucano planes from Sierra Nevada Corp. and AT-6 Wolverines from Textron to continue light-attack demonstrations, the service’s top general said Wednesday.

That purchase provides a modest, but much-needed show of confidence for the two companies, which have invested internal funding over the past two years on the Air Force’s light-attack experiment and are still hoping the service moves forward with a bigger buy of light-attack aircraft.

The Air Force plans to place small detachments of AT-6 and A-29 turboprop planes at Nellis Air Force Base — the Nevada-based installation that hosts Red Flag and other training exercises — and Hurlburt Field, Florida, where Air Force Special Operations Command is based, Chief of Staff Gen. Dave Goldfein said during a Senate Appropriations Committee hearing.

Air Force spokeswoman Ann Stefanek told Defense News that the service would likely buy two or three of each aircraft, but Goldfein told lawmakers at the hearing that the exact numbers would be dependent on the price tag of the planes.

“The United States Marine Corps has already said they’re joining us,” Goldfein said. “We’re going to invite allies and partners, and with the authorities you’ve given us now that we own those prototypes, we will continue to experiment to build the interoperable network that we’ve already advanced.”

Funding for the AT-6 and A-29 will come from leftover money from previous years’ budgets. Congress has appropriated about $200 million for the experimentation campaign so far, Stefanek said. Of that, about $60 million in fiscal 2018 research and development funds and $100 million in fiscal 2019 procurement funds still remain, and will be used by the service to finance the AT-6 and A-29 buy.

Although most of the light-attack experiment centered around turboprop planes, the Air Force is interested in expanding the exercise to include drones, rotorcraft and turbojet planes.

The FY20 budget request calls for $35 million to continue the light-attack experiment. Part of those funds would go toward a market analysis of global demand for light-attack platforms, Air Force Secretary Heather Wilson said.

Then the service would go through a similar process as it did with earlier portions of the experiment, soliciting companies to offer off-the-shelf technologies and using special, congressionally approved authorities to partner with them for demonstrations.

The idea is that the Air Force will have solidified exactly what light-attack capabilities it needs sometime around 2022 through 2024, when it plans to procure such assets, Goldfein said.

However, some lawmakers criticized Air Force leadership for what they perceived as its sluggishness in moving to the procurement phase of the experiment.

Sen. Jerry Moran, R-Kan., said that when he saw a recent report by the Pentagon’s weapons testing agency that cited a plan for the Air Force to buy upward of 300 light-attack aircraft, he considered it as proof that the rapid acquisition process was working. However, recent statements by Air Force leaders on the future of the program made him concerned that the service was abandoning light-attack aircraft procurement, he noted.

“It seems to me that there is a schizophrenia in the Air Force about light attack. The messages are mixed,” Moran said.

Goldfein responded that the service simply didn’t have enough information to commit to a program of record at this point, and wanted to do more work exploring the requirements of partner nations and establishing an interoperable network with them before making a final decision.

“When you compare what we’ve done compared to a normal timeline for acquisition that would take five to 10 years, we’re two years into this,” he said.

https://www.defensenews.com/smr/federal ... am-follow/
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 8622
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

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

Thu Mar 14, 2019 6:07 am

Waste of money.
 
ELBOB
Posts: 295
Joined: Sun Jun 21, 2015 6:56 am

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

Thu Mar 14, 2019 8:57 am

smithbs wrote:
But today, if you can afford a LITENING pod, a F-16 and some JDAMs or SDBs, then you don't need to be so low and slow.


So long as there isn't cloud cover and your target conveniently stays in one location and you have a FAC assigned to every unit.

In the 1980s, A-10 pilots assigned to USAFE had to be retrained in-theatre to operate below 1,000ft cloud ceiling and 1 mile visibility; these conditions occurred more than 80% of the time.
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 13121
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

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

Sat Mar 16, 2019 3:42 am

Ozair wrote:

keesje wrote:
If you are faster and quieter and have engine redundancy, it enlarges the number of situations you can operate more safely.

So? The USAF didn’t want that in this competition, they specifically down selected the AT-6 and the A-29 for a reason. While they apparently have reassessed what they want out of OA-X it is primarily driven by budget constraints.


Well they changed their mind :smile:

The Air Force started evaluating light-attack plane offerings in 2017 and was set to release a request for proposals in December 2018 to potentially lead to a program of record. But the service is not ready to commit to a program just yet, and wants to continue the experimentation phase, Under Secretary of the Air Force Matt Donovan told reporters after an Air Force Association event.

"We're going to broaden the scope a little bit,” he said, potentially alluding for the possibility of new aircraft types to enter the competition.

If the Air Force is considering alternative aircraft, it’s unclear what requirements are driving that search or whether a new entrant has caught the service’s eye.

Some foreign companies, namely South Africa’s Paramount Group and Czech aerospace firm Aero Vodochody, have expressed interest in competing for U.S. light-attack aircraft contracts. And it’s possible the T-X trainer jet, for which the Air Force chose Boeing to build, could be modified for a light-attack role.

But for the last six months, Air Force acquisition officials have firmly suggested the A-29 or AT-6 would be the only options under consideration going forward.

https://www.defensenews.com/air/2019/01/18/the-air-forces-plans-to-begin-a-light-attack-aircraft-competition-are-now-deferred-indefinitely/

:arrow: IMO higher speed, engines redundancy & less noise are back in now, to reduce risk. The "doctrine" seems kind of side lined.

https://www.defensenews.com/smr/federal-budget/2019/03/12/air-force-puts-35-million-in-new-budget-for-light-attack-experiment/?utm_source=clavis
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 20 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