Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire USAF not buying light attack aircraft.

Sorry, Sierra Nevada Corp. and Textron: The US Air Force isn’t buying light attack planes

I've been against this program from day one, glad to see the AF finally realized it's not the answer for replacing the A-10.




The Air Force will buy only two A-29 Super Tucanos, above, and two AT-6 Wolverines, below. However, it has abandoned plans to buy a larger fleet of either aircraft type. (Ethan Wagner/U.S. Air Force)
WASHINGTON — At long last, the U.S. Air Force has definitively stated it will not procure light attack planes, putting to bed a three-year-long debate about whether to buy upward of 300 low-cost aircraft for the counterterrorism fight.

In a statement to Defense News, Air Force spokeswoman Ann Stefanek confirmed that the service will not move forward with a program of record for light attack planes.

Instead, U.S. Special Operations Command has requested $106 million in the fiscal 2021 defense budget for its armed overwatch requirement, according to Defense Department budget materials. As part of that program, SOCOM is set to acquire as many as 75 light attack aircraft, the command stated in a Feb. 3 solicitation.

Click here for more from the fiscal 2021 budget.

The funding would support “prototype demonstrations and the testing of Special Operation Forces-unique capabilities and air worthiness release efforts” as well as the “procurement of aircraft, mission kits and associated support equipment,” according to the department.


Last year, Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Dave Goldfein said the Air Force would continue experimenting with light attack aircraft, using funding from FY18 and FY19 to buy a handful of AT-6 Wolverine turboprop planes from Textron and A-29 Super Tucanos from a Sierra Nevada Corp.-Embraer team. Then, in FY22, the service would be ready to decide whether to venture into a program of record, he said.

The Air Force still intends to buy two AT-6s and two A-29s, Stefanek said. However, the scope of their future operations has become more limited as the service opted to not pursue a larger buy.

At Nellis Air Force Base, Nevada, “[the] AT-6 will be used for continued experimentation on exportable network/data link capabilities for allies and partners,” said Stefanek, referencing a project under development known as Airborne Extensible Relay Over-Horizon Network, or AEROnet.

Meanwhile, U.S. Air Force Special Operations Command pilots will use the A-29s to conduct training at Hurlburt Field, Florida, allowing them to act as instructor pilots and advisers for partner nations that plan to operate the A-29, Stefanek said.

For the past year, Air Force leaders have been sending signals that their interest in buying light attack aircraft was waning. The service originally considered a buy of several hundred planes that would be able to augment pilot absorption and provide a less expensive alternative to using high-cost fighters like the F-15 and F-35 for low-threat strikes against terrorist groups. However, a national defense strategy that prioritizes the fight against near-peer adversaries like Russia and China made it difficult to justify buying an aircraft fleet only survivable in the most uncontested environments.

In contrast, SOCOM has been bullish on light attack capabilities, with its commander, Gen. Richard Clarke, describing it as “a need for SOCOM” and “a need for our nation.”

In the FY20 national defense policy bill, Congress instructed the Air Force to coordinate with SOCOM on light attack capabilities and included an option “to transfer a portion of funds authorized for Air Force light attack aircraft experiments to procure aircraft for supporting the combat air adviser mission of the Special Operations Command.”

While the Air Force seemed most interested in the A-29 and AT-6 as potential light attack platforms, SOCOM appears to want to explore all options. The command is holding an Armed Overwatch industry day March 4-5 to discuss an upcoming demonstration of prototype aircraft.

I agree with you Woody, it's a BS idea from square 1.

Somebody could shoot one of those things down with a good wrist rocket. The Warthog can fly through a hardware store at full throttle, zap the bad guys, and bring its pilot home without a scratch. Why mess with success?
Jerry

No place for an A1 Skyraider in today's environment?

Or these modern planes would not make a pimple on the butt of a Skyraider?

Will there ever be a viable replacement for the A 10? Or will USAF simply use UAVs to fill the roll?

There be 4 things required for a useful "light" attack aircraft.
- a pilot
- loiter time
- payload
- guns

"Light" means something around 10K plus armament payload.
"Pilot" means someone on board in the cockpit. Sitting in front of a computer in Wichita isn't the ticket.
"Loiter time" translates to a couple hours give or take.
"Gun" because they can be used for danger close fire missions to help friendly forces.

If someone needs "light attack aircraft" they have already been invented. Today's version is called the Apache.

All else is twaddle.

Besides, that money could be better used to get targeting software for the F-35 that ACTUALLY WORKS.

What's another Billion or two in cost overtuns ,eh?

They ought to have bids on companies who will start making new A 10s...
and A 6 Intruders also ( JMHO)...

The Skyraider was always one of my favorite A/C, especially a Navy A/C...

I really think that the F 22s and F 35s will be made obsolete sooner than people think...
anti Aircraft missile systems have gotten so sophisticated, fighters and even large bombers
are pretty much obsolete now...regardless of altitude.... missiles are so much cheaper and accurate.

The two A/C that are pictured in Woodie's post, is pretty much like the P51s being used in Korea...
High attitrition.. too bad they scrapped all of those P 47s after WW 2... they would have made a
much better showing in Korea for ground attack and support...

Not much does what the A 10 did... nor the Skyraider, or even the A 6 Intruder...

We don't need to get rid of the A 10, the nation needs to be making newer Airframes with updated Avionics...

They don’t know what the Fugg they are talking about, its much more efficient to drop hand grenades in mayonnaise jars from balloons.

The AF took the 8 C-130H2s (88-1301 - 88-1308) my ANG unit had and converted them to MC-130Ws then put guns on them AC-130W Stingers and now word has it 88-1301 is going to the bone yard next year or so. The AF says they're not needed/don't know what to do with them.

Almost asked that question in the last post. Appreciate hearing it from a man who has been there and done that.

What would a stealth version of an Intruder look like?

Today's missile environment is exactly why miniscule radar signature is paramount. I do not think there is any way to stealth up an A 10 and maintain the mission attributes. But when flying within range of optically sighted weapons, radar signature does not matter so much.

Between the A-10 and the Apache, not much need for anything new. Got us a low and slow bombproof fixed wing gun and bomb platform, and an agile rotary platform for gun and missiles, so what more is needed? I suspect very little that the drone fleet can’t handle. And anything that makes a Warthog or an Apache obsolete will sure as hell negate the fast movers from any close support role, too. They aren’t worth much in that role right now. This is what happens when you have generals with too much money and a slew of companies wanting it.

I suspect the next big war will start with jet fighters and aircraft carriers, but find those platforms totally obsolete by its end. God only knows what will replace them. I just hope it’s not sticks and stones.

Good thing they squashed that flying grape...

We had a 'light' attack aircraft!

It's called P-47

There's nothing about being "Mud Movers" that is glamorous, sexy, etc. Give the A.F. three super duper ultra fast, high orbit weapons systems and give the A-10s, the C-130 converted to ground attack to the Marines.

I've always thought that planes like the Super Tucano were purpose-built for low-rent, banana republic, backwater countries that don't have the GDP to afford anything better or the ability and need to project force very far outside their borders.





That's when Space Force will nuke the problem from orbit. The sticks and stones war will come after that.

I still don’t like our buying military platforms from foreign countries

Yep. The arenas where a light attack aircraft are survivable is really small. It's not just an airplane. It's a parts supply line, training and life-cycle maintenance. A really big nut in a decreasing budget world.

Exactly. It isn't the plane, per se but the logistics. Which is why there's no way to go back to piston engines and avgas.

The survivability issue is also key. Heck, small light planes were on the cusp of non-survivable 50 years ago.

Pierre Sprey would be proud of you boys! Just read Boyd, another realist the Air Force gimmick sellers hated. Good read.