USAF Light Attack Aircraft [Archive]

View Full Version : USAF Light Attack Aircraft

Mikestro

July 20th, 2007, 09:51 PM

After reading an article on the front page about the Czech trainers/light fighters I am supriesed that more major powers do not employ light fighter like USAF?

Does the US definition of light attack differ from everyone else and they consider AV-8, A-10, F-16 to be light attack fighters (AC-130? too?).

I read about the costs involved in Afganistan and Iraq to have F-15, B-1 et all circling overhead waiting to be called upon to drop a JDAM or the need for low-speed for proper straffing runs. Why dont we see more light attack fighters? Right now you have $80million planes circling overhead waiting to drop an $80,000 JDam causing wear and tear and extra expense for aircraft that should be saved for more important missions.

I suppose there are several possible answers.

1. Airforce fighter pilots wanting a big part of the budget to buy high-tech high price aircraft

2. Smaller airforces (ie. Non-USA) can not afford multiple types of airframes so they stick with multi-role.

3. Like I mentioned earlier other aircraft like F-16, Av-8, A-10 and possiblely helicopters already fill this role (and now UAVs).

I read reports that the US was planning on bring back some OV-10 Broncos back in to service for Iraq but I have not heard any more about that.

I am still suprised there is not more interest in low cost light attack aircraft but most major airforces dont seem to be interested? Like Brazil' Super Tucano or some civillian light aircraft for spotting/fire support with a small armament. Or trainer type aircraft like T-50 to support troops in areas where air dominance has been obtained.

Armed trainers could also act as reserve aircraft for airforces in time of war.

Conversion of trainers/civillian aircraft should be simplified by use of litening pod or Sniper pod et all.

Any thoughts? Comments?

rjmaz1

July 21st, 2007, 01:14 AM

The role of the light attack or recon aircraft are now done by unmanned aircraft.

Laser guided hellfire missiles have more than enough firepower and accuracy.

The Current predator B can stay in the air for twice as long as a Bronco aqnd will eventually be a fraction of the cost to operate once the control network evolves.

gf0012-aust

July 21st, 2007, 01:30 AM

The role of the light attack or recon aircraft are now done by unmanned aircraft.

incorrect. the US currently has over 50 aircraft used for manned COIN and insurgency management roles. Unmanned aircraft are not sophisticated enough to undertake these missions

Laser guided hellfire missiles have more than enough firepower and accuracy.

for what? weapons are a requirements issue, not all light combat or COIN missions are tasked for delivery of hellfire etc... In fact guns are still critical for these missions.

The Current predator B can stay in the air for twice as long as a Bronco aqnd will eventually be a fraction of the cost to operate once the control network evolves.

endurance means squat if the platform cannot fulfill requirements.

the resurgence in US interest for light manned aircraft is due to the fact that manned light solutions for existing requirements such as COIN and light insurgency management still cannot be successfully undertaken by UAVs.

thats why the US is looking at buying more light manned aircraft for these missions - and not even attempting to replace them with UAV's except for complimentary surveillance.

even then, current doctrine is for these light manned aircraft to run in pairs, one acts as a top deck spotter and airborne GMTI asset, while the second stringer is used for delivery.

kato

July 21st, 2007, 07:34 PM

incorrect. the US currently has over 50 aircraft used for manned COIN and insurgency management roles. Unmanned aircraft are not sophisticated enough to undertake these missions

Those would be? The various about a dozen types of light transports the USAF and US Army operate like the C-12 Huron? Cuz there's more than 50 of those ;)

gf0012-aust

July 21st, 2007, 07:48 PM

Those would be? The various about a dozen types of light transports the USAF and US Army operate like the C-12 Huron? Cuz there's more than 50 of those ;)

I'm not going to retype everything I have written on this on other forums - so I'll throw the link up.

remember to edit the http portion:

h*tp://www.strategypage.com/militaryforums/6-43429.aspx (http://www.strategypage.com/militaryforums/6-43429.aspx)

kato

July 21st, 2007, 08:27 PM

LancerMc

July 23rd, 2007, 09:40 PM

During Vietnam the USAF & USN navy had such aircraft as light combat aircraft like the A-37 Dragon Fly, 0-10 Bronco's, and A-1 Sky Raiders. Today I would think that only a the UCAV's would really be considered light combat aircraft in the US military. Bombers with precision weapons, long range, and station times there is less of a need of a large fleet of dedicated light attack aircraft.

gf0012-aust

July 23rd, 2007, 10:47 PM

Today I would think that only a the UCAV's would really be considered light combat aircraft in the US military. Bombers with precision weapons, long range, and station times there is less of a need of a large fleet of dedicated light attack aircraft.

I think you are blurring contemp CAS with contemp COIN. The current COIN manned roles have been revitalised due to the fact that contemp PGM delivery via upgraded B1's, A-10's etc..... still cannot undertake these missions (i.e. mission requirements issues)

nero

July 24th, 2007, 02:32 AM

.

in this age of UAVs, do u really need a light-attack fighter ???

the dominator UAV launched from a bomber can do the job.

The idea behind “Dominator” is persistence, a one way UAV that carries two or more missiles, and lots of sensors for finding targets. The Dominator could cruise around for 12, 24 or more hours. After that, it would self-destruct, or dive into a target.

the advantages of the dominator is unparalled.

Think about it:

- No pilots taken POW

- No risk of 100 million dollar craft shot down by a weapon system costing only 1% of the target

- Massive numbers of attack craft can even be used for soft targets and counter insurgency roles

- Fear factor would be unparalleled

- Cost per unit would enable not just hundreds, but perhaps even thousands for deployment

.

gf0012-aust

July 24th, 2007, 02:45 AM

.

in this age of UAVs, do u really need a light-attack fighter ???

did you read my prev response? UAV's cannot and do not fulfill all the requisites for some COIN work. - They are YEARS away from having that kind of autonomous capability

nero

July 24th, 2007, 02:58 AM

did you read my prev response? UAV's cannot and do not fulfill all the requisites for some COIN work. - They are YEARS away from having that kind of autonomous capability
.

I did read ur previous post & i agree with u completely.

i was only trying to highlight the dominator & the role it would play in future battle scenarios.

Admin Text deleted. Giving Moderators cheek is a fast way to end up back in the sin bin.

.

XaNDeR

July 24th, 2007, 08:02 AM

Does the US definition of light attack differ from everyone else and they consider AV-8, A-10, F-16 to be light attack fighters (AC-130? too?).

Now how exactly do you consider AC-130 a " light attack fighter " its nor a fighter nor is it light

FiredForEffect

July 24th, 2007, 09:58 AM

Aircraft like the Super Tucano offer a strong cannon/MG armament combined with good low speed characteristics. This deadly, yet low yield combination is key when collateral damage can do such huge damage to a "hearts and minds" campaign. LGBs and JDAMs in urban settings have a habit of generating more enemy sympathizers than they neutralize. Maybe some of the number crunchers can tell us how many light prop COIN aircraft could be put over Baghdad for the cost of fully armed 1 B-1B.

Of course, this is not to say that LGBs and JDAMs have no place in the fight.

kato

July 24th, 2007, 01:24 PM

For COIN you primarily need a light, rugged aircraft that can loiter over a target area and attack hostile positions both as pre-planned as well as as needed on the spot.

You can in theory do COIN quite well with light helos, but acquisition and operating costs really favour light fixed-wing aircraft in comparison.

Super Tucano and similar aircraft play in a different league somewhat - they are also used as patrol & pursuit aircraft, somewhat. At least Brazilian Super Tucanos have that added role, and the armament for it.

Hellfires, other ATGM and PGM are really wasted on most COIN missions. You're not out to crack some bunker or intercept a single, pre-reconned vehicle - and even if you are, a volley of 70mm rockets can work wonders.

Valin

July 9th, 2009, 03:08 PM

to me the OA-10A Hog seems to fit this description pretty much exactly. Comparatively good loiter time due to turbo fans, excellent survivability and systems redundancy, packs a punch, etc....the only problem is airframe rarity due to stress and the ongoing upgrade to A-10C standard......

and i do not believe that UCAVs are the right tool for the job...nothing beats having eyes on target.

For COIN you primarily need a light, rugged aircraft that can loiter over a target area and attack hostile positions both as pre-planned as well as as needed on the spot.

You can in theory do COIN quite well with light helos, but acquisition and operating costs really favour light fixed-wing aircraft in comparison.

Super Tucano and similar aircraft play in a different league somewhat - they are also used as patrol & pursuit aircraft, somewhat. At least Brazilian Super Tucanos have that added role, and the armament for it.

Hellfires, other ATGM and PGM are really wasted on most COIN missions. You're not out to crack some bunker or intercept a single, pre-reconned vehicle - and even if you are, a volley of 70mm rockets can work wonders.

gf0012-aust

July 9th, 2009, 04:29 PM

to me the OA-10A Hog seems to fit this description pretty much exactly. Comparatively good loiter time due to turbo fans, excellent survivability and systems redundancy, packs a punch, etc....the only problem is airframe rarity due to stress and the ongoing upgrade to A-10C standard......

The US already has over 60 aircraft conducting COIN in its "nether regions". At last count there were over 5 agencies involved, and the aircraft they're using are IMO considerably better than re-investing in an A-10 which has limitations.

That is of course relative to the mission needs, and the current needs are using props over fans because it brings along different operational advantages (maint, support, range, basing, pilot skills, local support in area of interest, "noise" etc.....

An A-10 in afghanistan or the early stages of Iraq would have made sense, but not in Sth America - where over 99% of the US COIN ops are occurring...

thorpete1

July 16th, 2009, 05:53 AM

This is proberly how it is done at the moment anyway but it makes good sense. The UAV loiters over a suspect area and pinpoints the insurgents, the COIN pair moves in and engages the insurgents while the UAV flies overhead watching for the big wigs or moves on to the next area. UAV's cant perform the coin role yet but they can preform the IS&R role fairly well.

Looking at COIN aircraft that could fill the role, the AT-6 would be perfect for the role. Cheap to operate, cheap to buy and the USAF and USN already have a heap of the parent aircraft, the T-6 Texan II (Not the Texan I) is currently used for initial flight training. This means most fighter pilots in the USAF and USN would have at some point in time flown the T-6, making training easy.
The T-6B and AT-6 would share a lot of parts and the facilities in place for the T-6B would most proberly require little or no modification to handle the AT-6. The AT-6 can be armed with with .50" gun pods, 2.75" rockets, Paveway II / IV LGB's, JDAM, Hellfire, Maverick, Sidewinder and SDB. So it can carry the COIN staples as well as the big stuff for when a little bang just ain't enough.Its also loaded with a load of sensors and radio's and could perform the Forward Air Control role well.

Cheers

Jezza

July 19th, 2009, 05:24 AM

Thanks for the link.

If i get that right, currently "employable" in COIN role are:
- Ayres T-65 (mostly employed in a DEA support role in Columbia)
- AT-806
- potentially PC-12 (used more for SpecOps).

I presume the AT-806 is an armed modification of the civilian AT-802? Can't find much info on it, other than it being a modified crop-duster/light firefighter.

Hmm, my random mentioning of the C-12 Huron got me thinking of a "AC-12" for fire support now :mad:

Air Tractor is now offering the weaponized AT-802U Air Truck to the US Air Force and other militaries to serve as a a trainer/light attack fighter. After its international debut in Paris, the PT6A-67F-powered turboprop will return to Olney for a series of wepaons and sensor integration trials, he said.

The AT-802U must overcome its stigma as an old-fashioned tail-dragger, but Jackson sees its lack of a tricycle landing gear as an advatange in the irregular warfare role. For lighly trained pilots forced to make hard landings on remote strips, the two main gears offer a great advantage, he said.

The aircraft may find its true niche in an operational setting like Afghanistan, he said. It's an interesting idea. The Afghans need a sturdy trainer and attack fighter. The ability to spray the Taliban's poppy fields might also come in handy.
PHOTOS: New gunship flies to Paris Air Show debut - The DEW Line (http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2009/06/photos-new-gunship-flies-to-pa.html)

Air Truck AT-802U can carry a number of weapons that include “M260 rocket launchers”, “Mk 82 500-pound bombs” and GAU-19/A three-barreled 12.7-mm Gatling guns.
Air Truck AT-??802u (http://www.makli.com/air-truck-at-802u/)

Salty Dog

July 21st, 2009, 11:17 PM

Firn

July 22nd, 2009, 11:45 AM

The US Navy is testing a leased EMB-312 Super Tucano (http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=3989450) for use to support SPECOPS.

Looking for funding, the USN is politicking the USAF and USMC for funds to support this program.

The FAC (Colombian Air Force) has used these EMB-312 quite effectively in COIN missions.

Certainly a very interesting option for the service. It seems that it won quite some favour in the FAC, at least they had two follow up buys.

gf0012-aust

July 22nd, 2009, 06:07 PM

It seems that it won quite some favour in the FAC, at least they had two follow up buys.

A couple of US Agencies have been trialling Super Tucanos over the last 4 years. This is not really a new event. Again, as I said prev, over 5 agencies have been using light attack aircraft in a COIN role over the last 5 years.

It includes neary all of the aircraft mentioned throughout this thread.

B.Smitty

July 24th, 2009, 10:09 AM

A couple of US Agencies have been trialling Super Tucanos over the last 4 years. This is not really a new event. Again, as I said prev, over 5 agencies have been using light attack aircraft in a COIN role over the last 5 years.

I know these small, armed prop trainers are all the buzz these days, but I have trouble getting enthusiastic about them for the USAF. They may fill needs in smaller air forces, but I don't think they are a great fit for us.

Dispersed airfields in theory provide greater responsiveness, but in practice come with a host of problems. You can't just park a few aircraft on a dirt strip. You need a force protection package to sanitize the area around the airfield. You need to fly or truck in fuel, munitions, spares and maintenance crews. You need to house everything.

All of this turns a supposedly small, austere airbase into a major undertaking.

Personally, I would rather see a small jet, perhaps based on a trainer or even a business jet like the Cessna Citation series.

There are obvious drawbacks to using a bizjet (e.g. low-altitude survivability, maneuverability lack of ejection seats), but the benefits include known low costs of operation, potential shirt-sleeve work environment with lavatory (for those extremely long missions), and interior space for additional crew stations or rest areas.

Making this work would require a small guided munition that could be carried in numbers to take the place of strafing. Perhaps something like APKWS II. Ideally, munition standoff range and altitude would allow the bizjet to stay out of the trashfire envelope.

With long range, reasonably high cruising speed, AAR-capable, and a comfortable working environment, bizjet attack aircraft could be clustered at larger airbases and benefit from economies of scale for force protection and sustainment.

Valin

July 28th, 2009, 03:22 PM

I personally like the thought process here, seems to be a pretty good idea, the only question i have with this concept is how the airframe would deal with hard points and related munitions. also, what effect would an increased sensor/crew/weapons payload do to the airframe?

I was rater intrigued during a recent visit to Israel by a similar concept. As my flight was taxiing to the terminal, i spotted a Gulfstream (I think) that looked to be re manufactured into an AEW/Elint type platform.

This got me thinking for a moment as to the benefit of possibly having some more of these in the US for sea control. Perhaps this could be a platform which becomes a 'jack of all trades'? no need to purchase a super specialized platform when one can do many tasks well.

I know these small, armed prop trainers are all the buzz these days, but I have trouble getting enthusiastic about them for the USAF. They may fill needs in smaller air forces, but I don't think they are a great fit for us.

Dispersed airfields in theory provide greater responsiveness, but in practice come with a host of problems. You can't just park a few aircraft on a dirt strip. You need a force protection package to sanitize the area around the airfield. You need to fly or truck in fuel, munitions, spares and maintenance crews. You need to house everything.

All of this turns a supposedly small, austere airbase into a major undertaking.

Personally, I would rather see a small jet, perhaps based on a trainer or even a business jet like the Cessna Citation series.

There are obvious drawbacks to using a bizjet (e.g. low-altitude survivability, maneuverability lack of ejection seats), but the benefits include known low costs of operation, potential shirt-sleeve work environment with lavatory (for those extremely long missions), and interior space for additional crew stations or rest areas.

Making this work would require a small guided munition that could be carried in numbers to take the place of strafing. Perhaps something like APKWS II. Ideally, munition standoff range and altitude would allow the bizjet to stay out of the trashfire envelope.

With long range, reasonably high cruising speed, AAR-capable, and a comfortable working environment, bizjet attack aircraft could be clustered at larger airbases and benefit from economies of scale for force protection and sustainment.

B.Smitty

July 28th, 2009, 04:27 PM