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.

Morning all...

I've always thought this airframe was best suited for drug interdiction as well as a possible cheap training platform for WSO's. Never could understand the need for that back seat with limited ordinance capabilities especially since the A-10 carries so much more and the driver seems to handle all tasks extremely well.

Performance envelopes are minimal at best for CAS aircraft especially in very hostile environments therefore making them cannon fodder with low survive ability IMO.

My gut tells me there's a new Warthog concept out there somewhere maybe even in trial test mode awaiting DOD/AF approval, just hope it's a better idea than this pee shooter !

Should probably add the Kiowa to the stable, yes

Back in time a ways I had occasion to chuckle at the generosity we gave the S. Vietnamese Air Force. They had some choppers of course and some Skyraiders. Lo and behold they also had some A-37s. That was the T-37 Tweetie Bird with a couple of hard points on each wing. Good enough for a pass or two on the enemy then head home for a brew. They couldn't hit a damn thing, but they sure were cute.

There are several missions suitable for aircraft in a combat role. One is served well by the likes of the B52 and B1, maybe even the B2. It's the "line out a grid box and annihilate it" mission.
Another is interdiction or an attack on a hard target with military value. This can be served in a number of ways, but entails countering air defense and like style obstacles. There is benefit to smart weapons in this role, as well as weapons with special attributes such as deep penetration (delayed fusing, shape charges and other odds and ends. Then along comes the close support mission, one specifically intended to engage enemy troops in contact with friendlies. This is not the place for big bombs. Precision delivery is required for cannon fire and/or rockets. One little oopsie and you just whacked your own troops.

In the pursuit of these roles it should be understood that certain issues face the crews carrying out the mission, and certain attributes of the delivery system are of importance. Stealth is cool when the air defense networks can be snookered by such things. It is totally irrelevant in close support roles. Everybody's cards are on the table for those slugfests. Of course there are things that can be done to foil the enemy's defense capability. Following the introduction of the SA7 in Vietnam all Army choppers typically engaged in direct combat ops had modifications done to the exhaust system which shielded the IR signature and made it impossible for them to lock onto us. All Army chopper shootdowns by the SA7 occurred before this modification was in place. Heavy AA cannons on the ground? Fly down in the mud and eliminate 90% of the risk. My point is there are ways and means, but no one should be under the illusion that one plane can do it all (KMA Mr. McNamara) or that we can dispose of the coordinated force application scheme. When troops are on the ground you don't need stealth or bombs. You do need systems that allow precise close in fire support, and a lot of it for that matter. It is not an arena where stealth matters, nor high speed, or anything related. It's mud, blood and beer time...roll up you sleeves and get to it.

I liked the Spad (A1E) and the A-6 and F4. I loved the B52. Only one that was of any use in the close support role was the A1E....and choppers. So what is close support? I was doing some of that one day just north of DaNang, Christmas day 1969. Our troops were pinned down in an enemy bunker complex and had a fair number of casualties. High tree cover voided the thought of using the Cobras due to the nature of HE Quick fusing. The only real option was to take out the bunkers from up close. Distance between the first bunker I engaged and friendlies was about 30 meters. I approached to a hover about 150' over the friendlies and ripped off a 3 second burst with the minigun into the bunker entrance and gun ports. Troops bitched about my brass and links falling on them like rain, but they weren't getting shot at from that bunker any longer. Bunker #2 got a C4 satchel charge dropped on the roof, etc. etc. Then I started picking up wounded and delivering them to the Evac hospital. You can't do that stuff with a cute little "light attack" aircraft for the very same reason(s) the Cobras were not at play that day.

On another occasion in support of Force Recon in the A Shau Valley the radio man said "shoot my smoke". How far do you think you can throw a smoke grenade when hunkered down in a fox hole? One little piece of rocket shrapnel bounced off his radio and nicked his weenie, but they ALL came home that day. Not the job for an A6 and 750# bombs is it? The A-10 is the distilled essence of our experience in Nam and I'd suggest if we are going to engage in bar room brawls in the future they should still be in production. They are remarkably capable, tough and perfectly suited for such chicanery..

Damn. If I ever get the chance to meet you, beers are on me.

Being as how I'm an old school scout pilot I sorta thought that went without saying. Kamikazes can be a grunt's best friend. I flew a -58 many years ago, but very much preferred the OH6. In typical DoD fashion they shut down production after the initial contract was completed. Local sheriff's dept. is still flying one...complete with bullet hole patches...50 years later.

A1, OH6, A10....those dingbats in Washington just don't get it.....

That was a good post Dan. Even a dummy like myself understood it.



So, there is no room in the stable for a horse like this turbo prop? Not to replace any existing airframe but to enhance our capability?

Here here, Dan. You KNOW I'm going to agree.

I didn't get to drop ordnance, but I did have the final say on what was to be dropped, by whom, and exactly where. And if it went to hell, it was my fault, period. As Dan said, when you have troops fighting at bayonet range, you do not drop a weapon with a 100-yard kill radius. You need sniper-quality delivery in volumes like a hailstorm.

Air to mud and CAS are tough, perhaps THE toughest job to be done from the air. There likely is no perfect answer, but attack helos and purpose-built CAS fighters like the A-10 are the closest we've come so far.

All true, but it is REALLY hard to spend gargantuan defense budgets on old, out of date technology, no matter how effective it is. And Congress critters can't reelected without new big ticket items for their districts.

Who wanted these planes?


I mean.....Special Forces does not normally come to shore on a Nimitz air craft carrier do they?




Is there any doubt who is in country if an Apache or a Warthog is shooting at you?

On behalf of the boys on the ground 50 years ago, their kids, and their grandchildren, we thank you Dan.

That is very much the picture I imagined in my head of the environment. Since it is highly unlikely they will ever set up a new production line for the A 10 (with or without the GAU-8). I do hope a replacement is in the pipeline.

Isn’t it true that the USAF has been trying to dump the A10 and CAS duties period?

I don't see it Jim, at least not in the context of those little fairy wagons shown in the OP. I mentioned the strategies associated with air defense suppression earlier and one of the issues that floats to the top in my mind is the radar cross section of a propeller. It's huge...and a shoulder fired AA missile that tracks radar rather than IR signature has an easy target IMO. I may be overstating the significance of that, but the other thing that comes to mind is the very limited weapons capability they have. Look at the pic below, count the hard points on the wings and the style of weaponry.



Back in the day the Marines flew the OV10 is a different configuration that the USAF. They had miniguns, 5" rockets and on occasion carried small bombs. The artwork below illustrates they were a bit crazier than their AF counterparts. Note the wing stubs that suggest machine gun barrels? They carried those and miniguns on pods under the belly. Diversity has it's place


Another silly aspect of the OP aircraft is, uh, 2 seats? Why? Perhaps they want to provide more POWs down the road? The OV10 had 2 seats also, but it's primary mission was forward air control (FAC) and an observer was/is a useful addition, even if not perfectly necessary.

If decided that props are OK, how about having a substantial weapons payload capability. Pic below illustrates this. Bombs, napalm, cannons/machine guns (see the barrels on the wing?) etc, etc...extra fuel and on and on and on....

That Marine Bronco art is a little bit fanciful. I doubt any were ever configured such. Air Force OV-10s had M-60s in the sponsons, but some commanders prohibited loading any ammo for them to prevent FACs from going "cowboy" instead of FACing. The normal load was a centerline fuel tank and two rocket pods. Without the tanks, the Bronco had limited loiter/transit time. With them, they were overloaded with any other ordnance. The joke was you could carry bombs, but you'd only have enough range to attack your own airfield.

Those look like they'd be lots of fun to fly in an air show!

If an A-10 only has one man cockpit what do the cute little turds need two? Seems like the space/weight would be better used.

They remind me very much of the T-28's that were configured with 2 .50 caliber guns and 4 hard points for bombs. Pipsqueak little peashooters became totally useless with the introduction by the NVA of shoulderfired missiles. USAF went over with them in Project Jungle Jim but soon gave them over to the VNAF, the Laos, the Thais and the Cambodian.

A10's should be replaced with A10's.

Fanciful art yes, I never saw one carrying bombs. I did see many packing the 5" Zuni rockets in pods and wind hard points and equipped with minigun pods. Don't recall ever seeing the Marine scheme that included fuel belly tanks. Perhaps they were not comfortable with being that far from the bar?

New DOD contracts mean grease. Old World charm.

DD:

Interesting first-hand experience. Such is always welcome.

One thing, though, I do not think any MANPADS shoulder launched AA missiles have RF guidance. Just IR & CLOS. Still, prop planes and helos stand out like sore thumbs to RF.

For my own part, I would like to see a modernized A-10 CAS/heavy lift/long loiter attack plane successor for AF/Navy/USMC that could be designed to operate from the USN/USMC carriers modified with a jump ramp & cable arrest to supplement the F-35. VTOL is mighty expensive mass & complexity-wise.

None of those aircraft: light attack, A-10, A-10 follow-on are survivable in an environment where an enemy air defense network still exists.

Since VN, we have operated in environments where we crush enemy AD networks and then the only enemy AD left is MANPADS and light cannons. AD suppression of near-peer foes will not be so easy. Just ask the Israelis after they pushed too hard and too slimily in Syria, hacking off the Russians...who then sold Bashar the S-300 AA system. Now, Syria can see and discriminate Israeli aircraft as they take off inside Israel. And Israel has stopped bombing Syria and Lebanon with aircraft, but uses ballistic and cruise missiles almost exclusively.

FTR, S-300 first produced in 1975 and was upgraded up through 2005. That 1975-origin technology has pinned down the Israeli AF, which used to bomb inside Syria and Lebanon with impunity.

As wonderful as the Spads are, they are no A-10. I say that as a strong admirer of the A-1, but it's time has passed. I thought the Piper Enforcers (a P-51 with a turboprop, basically) would be nice, until I thought it through. Nope, there simply are no substitutes for the A-10s and Apaches.

At least, as things are now. I wish someone, somewhere, would come up with a replacement for the Warthogs, a modernized version, but the Air Farce is full of zoomies, not groundpounders.

Jfruser, my understanding of manpads is congruent with your own. What survives amongst the airborne menagerie is much a matter of strategy and tactics. Nothing is without vulnerability but the style of application steers that buggy significantly. War is a very fluid envoirnment and it's better to have capabilities unused than wishes & dreams .

Air defense systems have their own vulnerabilities and as I recall Saddam Hussein could testify to that if he was still around.

Here you go.

Yep. Build your sanctuary and operate in it. The biggest difference the last 50 years have made is the weapons available. Laser and GPS guided weapons have been transformational. "Hit my spot" has largely replaced "hit my smoke" and weapons like Maverick and the GBU-39 are incredibly lethal and have much smaller frag patterns than traditional bombs.

In Iraq during urban warfare concrete bombs were dropped that would wipe out an apartment with just frag and energy and not harm the neighbor next door.

Always room for a gun but when you can put a B-52 or B-1 20 miles away and have them drop a precision weapon that will strike within 12" guided by the guy on the ground in the action it's a game changer.

Those mad scientist at China Lake are always inventing.

Why DOES the Air Force want to get rid of the A-10?

It's a battle that has been going on since 1947. Some in the Air Force do not think Close Air Support should be the function of the Air Force at all and that is the opinion of the Army as well. The Air Force has always been commanded by fighter pilots with certain exceptions such as Curtis LeMay, they dont speak low and slow very well. All political.

.The AF has always been forced to reinvent itself with changing threats, different theaters of operation and enemies with unorthodox tactics .LeMay's successful efforts to turn a ragtag WW2 bomber force into well disciplined squadrons was a win win fathering SAC as we all know..Korea was a test bed for new high performance aircraft yet left over low and slow WW2 recips proved their ability to handle a mutitude of tasks which only they could accomplish..

..Enter the long Vietnam war where early on we were shocked into a wake up call for reinventing the wheel.again...No guns on fast movers was a total misread of the threat which proved costly to many aircrews but then the light bulb came on again with hard point gunpods on wing stations first then the transition to self contained internal weaponry. Again we see the use of old vs new prosecuting the war with renewed technology upgrades such as retrofitting old DC-3's with mini guns for the gunship program I was proud to have been a part of..

..The Air Force is certainly not perfect which is an understatement be it by design or intervention however as with other branches has boxed itself into mainly trial and error mode relying on outside sourcing for policy making.

Gotcha. I had forgotten about that.

No guns on fighters may have worked out fine if Robert Strange McNamara hadn't implemented an ROE that gave away all the advantages of radar guided missiles to ensure the MiGs of the 1950s; had the advantage.

These would be fine fighting a narco terrorist in Columbia, but not in a real shooting war. I could see them used in some anti-terrorist measures if the bad guys didn't have ground to air rockets or good AA guns.

Because it's not fast and sexy.... Even more so, because it does not require a multi billion $$ development program with billions more in logistical tail.

In my career, I've flown H-60's doing rescue, and later C-17's. I've participated in multiple large force excercises, and several deployments. I've never been a ground pounder.

In -60's, we operated with A-10's, Apaches, F-16's and OH-58's in varying degrees as our "rescort." - The Sandy misson where the Hawks do the pickup, and the armed AC clear the way, and protect the Hawks during the run in and pickup.

The A-10's were by far the best. They were fast enough to daisy chain around us and scout ahead, but slow and low enough to keep eyeballs on us. The F-16's were almost useless. They had no time, they were too high and too fast to see us, and they couldn't engage pop up targets fast enough. The Apaches and 58's were less than useless. They flew slower than us, and couldn't scout ahead without us running racetracks.

I disagree with most posts here. I would LOVE the AF to pick up light attack. Why? Because the A-10 is not coming back into production. It just isn't for too many logistical reasons. Light Attack can't replace the A-10, nor should it. What we then have is a huge gap between the F-35 and the AH-64. Light Attack AT-6's cost less to buy, and less to operate than the Apache. They have longer loiter time, and can react faster to a TIC call (troops in contact). They are more able to evade manpads than AH-64's.

Very importantly, there's a finite number of hours available on an airframe. These low intensity wars we've been fighting have eaten up a lot of hours on the A-10's, F-16's and B-1's. Cheap light airframes can fill a big gap and keep the hours off of our WW3 planes.

Why do they have two seats? Because the airframe is designed for 2 seats. The T-6 Texan II trainer is the base airframe. It would acutally cost more to redesign it for singe seat. Also, the weight is negligible. It can carry 4,000 lbs of stuff... break that down in gas, people and weapons. A 200lb guy isn't that much in the grand scheme of things. I also kind of doubt that the AF would actually carry 2 people on most missions (the Apache needs 2 BTW).

Some light attack aircraft might possibly fill a niche, since there isn't currently anything like them in USAF service. I do believe that an armored brute force stomper like the A10 is needed too. Will the F35 with fancy expensive guided munitions do both of those jobs, plus be an effective fighter? Starts sounding too much like the one size fits all plan of things.

And to think I use to call on those ""mad scientist"" what was I thinking. Cheers NC

I did a LOT of special projects at China Lake in my career and really enjoyed it. The flying was great and invariably the "what if" ideas they came up with make you appreciate their passion even if sometimes you'd come back from a flight with a "WTF were we thinking"

Pretty much all my flying there was with VX-5 then VX-9. We'd bring our jet down for the week or so since their Prowler was often down for maint or getting modded to fit something new on it.

A little jealous here Pugs.

I'll get over it.

For me the issue with this concept has always been about survivability since I flew many missions in danger close environments.. You won't necessarily be engaged by ZSU's slinging 23 mike mike or fixed 37 or 57 mm AAA most of the time but however you slice & dice it this is a very fragile airframe, I doubt its ability to absorb even the smallest amount of punishment and survive..Redundancy is next to zero and the fact they plant a WSO in the back seat just because it's inherent to the airframe design makes no sense.

Guess we will just agree to disagree on this one ...

Survivability is less of an issue in low intensity conflicts like we have now. This aircraft wouln't be used against a near peer enemy in the opening days. It's for COIN. Just because it has a back seat, doesn't mean it has a WSO. The F-16B/D has a back seat, but doesn't have a WSO. Having a back seat does offer flexibility however... Could be used as an ISR asset for example.

I agree on the ISR format and with this airframe an extra set of eyes may be a good thing !

What is it about the warthog that the damn Air Force just doesn’t get? The Army should just tell the AF to GFY, go back to square one, create an army air wing and buy their own...

I've posted this many times before and don't mind again..The very first A-10's I saw fly in here and I'm talking many yrs ago where OD and had US Army logo on their tail feathers..It was all about logistics as the Army had no bases conducive for air ops and most likely would have ended up on AFB's anyway...As for buying their own there aren't any unless they want to resurrect them from the bone yard at DM..

The A-10 is going away. Probably the youngest airframes out there are pushing 40 years old or older and they have been used A LOT over the last twenty years. Only so much upgrading and rebuilding you can do on that sort of aircraft. It isn’t a mere go up and come down bomb hauler.

There is going to be a big capability gap. The fastest helicopters are a 150 to 200 mph slower than the A-10 or one of those light attack aircraft. That means it takes them a long time to get there. All the gee whiz stuff that can be launched from an F-16 or an F-35 doesn’t mean much if it is thirty miles away topping off with a tanker before coming back to the fight. Gee whiz stuff doesn’t help too much with that guy who popped up twenty seconds ago and is now shooting at you from behind cover and will continue to do so until someone can drop some ordnance on him.

The idea of a relatively fast ordnance hauler that could get there quickly and then loiter long enough to deal with the inevitable targets of opportunity is appealing. Is the A-10 better? Sure, but’s it’s going away and they are not going to put money in the budget to restart production or design a replacement. This light attack deal was an attempt to get a lower cost solution with off the shelf technology.

I’m sure they would be more than happy to make them again as long as someone was paying for them.

Same thoughtt!!!!!

Building them again would prove to be a wee bit difficult, as Fairchild Republic no longer exists, and all the manufacturing jigs and patterns are long gone.

I saw something in this thread about not liking them because a propellor sends how a huge radar signature making them easy to shoot down by a missile that is radar guided. Well, if that’s true about a prop, what about a rotor?

For the Navy the FAC mission is designed to be flown two seat. The USMC was with the F/-18D but that plane is either gone or gone soon and I think the USAF is going that way with their buy of more F-15Es. The amount of data and coordination the FAC faces today is loads more than the past and it's about to get worse with UAVs'.

Any reason why we couldn't do what the Chinese would do? Just take one apart and copy it.

We're not going to do it but does that mean it couldn't easily be done?

Rotors shine in the darkness too, but....they can hide in the bushes.

Think about what a radar sees looking from several miles away. A rotor viewed from the front (or side or rear) is like looking at the lid of a coffee can ON EDGE. But a propeller on a plane viewed from afar is like looking at the lid of the coffee can as if you were staring at it face-on....a much bigger signature on radar.

So a helicopter remains perfectly flat and doesn’t bank or otherwise shift the orientation of its rotor throughout flight?

I have zero issues with a back seat just an unnecessary risk for a small CAS aircraft of this type with no redundant qualities.. In low threat theaters today the JTAC link up is the best eyes on any CAS driver could want with up to date real time info constantly at their disposal..I'm totally impressed with this mission and wish we would have had them in my day..RO's most often gave us incorrect info and locations which made differentiating between good and bad a headache .

The future of CAS is standoff weapons or UAVs. Love the A-10 and it is still a VERY viable and useful platform, but you can only bend a paper clip so many times before it breaks and today's SAM environment is pretty deadly..

I know strictly for SOF purposes having dedicated and cheap aircraft like that would be nice. SOF tested out OV10 set up for CAS in Iraq a few years back and it did pretty well from what I read.

For a big war they'd be worthless pretty much, but for the types of missions that our various SOF elements do around the world a dedicated group of airplanes organized along the lines of the 160th would be nice IMO. As for the airframe I have no idea what would be the best one.

Agreed ... I have my doubts about the survivability of our upgraded gunships as well even with their enhanced standoff capabilities.

I didn't say that. Of course it banks and such. But, if you you're looking at a helicopter's rotor from missile distance (a couple to several miles away, let's say) what do you (on average) see? You're seeing the helo's rotor on EDGE and even though it's bigger than a typical plane's propeller it results in a much smaller signature on radar. As the helo yanks and banks during flight a radar may see the helo's signature come and go.

I work as a meteorologist and specialized in Doppler radar during my graduate studies. I have a couple of scientific journal publications on dual-Doppler radar analysis. One thing I can assure you - radar, while technologically well-developed and generally robust, is some persnickety s hit. Atmospheric conditions along with power output and tuning have to be just right in order to "see" exactly what you want to "see" with radar. Anything to reduce an aircraft's signature on radar is paramount to remaining stealthy - and the last thing you want to have is a giant fan turning in front of you 100% of the time that ends up looking like a great big bullseye to a radar. The only way to get THAT signature to come and go like with a helo would be to fly the airplane straight up or straight down - one of those is unattainable for any length of time, the other unsustainable for any length of time. ;-)

OV-10's were in over their heads 30 years ago. During Desert Storm they deployed 12 aircraft, lost 2 (16%) and flew 482 Sorties and that was in an environment with a lot of less capable MANPADs today and there was an aluminum overcast of us carrying HARMS begging for a SAM radar to turn on so we could shoot it.

Just like the COIN/ Light attack - how much of your defense budget is worth an aircraft that can only operate in a very small area of your mission scenarios?

Spot on !

Oh I agree they made next to no sense for Desert Storm, I was thinking about what would essentially be a fixed wing Army SOF support element. Used to support SOF guys doing SOF stuff in all the little 3rd world holes they do their work in.

If they're not dropping ordnance then follow the Air America model or others for things like we did in central America spraying poppies.

I could see a use for Army fixed wing ground attack aircraft used to support SOF elements that is controlled by USSOCOM.

Budget wise I have no idea if it's feasible and I have no doubt that good idea fairies would jump all over it and drive the price through the roof even if they went ahead with it. I know they wouldn't be useful for big war, but SOF does a lot of stuff where there isn't really a need for an aircraft carrier to stay off shore waiting for them to call for help, but it's stil fairly dangerous. Case in point is that SF team that got hit in Nigeria a while back.

Having a couple of cheap rugged ground attack planes that could deploy in country to support them seems like a reasonable idea to me.

You forget that the Army has no runways.

I think Army fixed wing SOF elements would face the same logistical problems today as the A-10 when it became operational that's why IMO rotary wing is the right call..

Not strictly true, I've taken off from Mackall for a jump a few times. I think that was a Caribou though, I'd have to check my jump logs. I get your point though.

Flyboy I agree the logistics would be a PITA but as long as the costs were kept reasonable, I think it would be able to be done. Keep the cost somewhere between a Blackhawk and an Apache if at all possible.

https://www.wearethemighty.com/gear-tech/socom-light-attack-aircraft-fleet

I live right down the road from Ft. Knox, and they still have Godfrey Field right there, I drive past it all the time. It used to house a P-51 squadron there, and they land C-130s there all the time. Ft. Bragg has an ex-AFB on hand, and I'm sure the others also have runways, I know Ft. Benning does (US Army Jump School has to have aircraft, and they have to take off from some place. My father took his one (and only) airplane ride at Ft. Sill OK. Yeah, the Army has runways.

That work out great for CAS missions in Kentucky, Georgia and Oklahoma.

Rocky are you talking about overseas?

I know in both Aghanistan and Iraq I was right next to an airfield. Afghanistan I had was actually close to two of them, Salerno and the one at Chapman.

Still a healthy support staff in Bethpage that go back to the Fairchild days but now work under the name Norhrop Grumman. Only a few remain but I had the pleasure of working with quite a few (since retired) that were there from the beginning of the A-10.

Very true on the jigs, dies, etc....every year in support of the SLEP and Modernization programs people go down to AMARG and look for the old Fairchild tooling that is believed to be somewhere in the desert boneyard.

Half of the A-10 fleet currently has brand new wings (Boeing built) with the remaining planes in the fleet slated to get new wings. While not building them new, a new wing is a pretty big investment and certainly adds a healthy number of service hours to the airframe.

Not only does the US Army have runways, it has more aircraft than the USAF. Oddly enough, Army aircraft don't require an officer to pilot them, like the USAF, USN, and USMC.

I have taken off many times from Henderson Army Airfield at Ft Benning, though remarkably fewer landings at ANY airfields.

Oh, and I think the light attack aircraft will mirror the rotary wing little birds' capability vis a vis apaches: smaller, lighter, easier to transpo via cargo aircraft...yet still provide good enough CAS for the environment.

My boy is thinking about a stint in the military after HS. Along with being a SOF dog trainer, flying one of those little buggers would be a nifty MOS.

There were about 300 fixed-wing capable airstrips in Vietnam, the majority were dirt or PSP and built/used by the Army.

The Airforce is keeping 228 A-10’s operational through 2040. All have been or are going to be rewinged. They are dumping 44 of the oldest A-10’s. That’s probably enough A-10’s to cover operations where they’re survivable. It only made sense to buy the light attack aircraft if they were going to get rid of the A-10’s but congress won’t let the Air Force get rid of the A-10. I think it’s the correct move. In a big war with a near peer adversary the A-10 isn’t survivable. The A-10 is unique in its capabilities but I suspect that cheap , capable , and easily available , manpads will end its career before 2040. The equivalent of current stingers will be made and sold by counties like China and sold to dirtbag 3rd worlders for next to nothing.
Btw , I’ve been used as targeting practice a half dozen times that I was aware of while driving my truck down 94 in South Georgia. Really cool planes to see practicing stalking and targeting. Running across a big clearcut and then popping up over a plantation tree line and dropping the nose down on you for just a moment and then diving back down into the cut. Amazing how they can turn.

No aircraft requires an officer to pilot them. The service itself does.

If you are inferring that Warrant Officers are not officers, then you are wrong. A Warrant Officer is commissioned at CW2. They can reenlist soldiers, they can take command, etc, etc. And yes, I was a Warrant Officer and I did reenlist several soldiers throughout my career.

Most of your line pilots in the Army, are Warrant Officers. They are specialists in their field. They do not go off to all the weird places the Commissioned folks go. Aviation Warrant Officers spend their careers in the cockpit, versus behind a desk.

Not sure the difference in speed, but would not the small turboprops be even more susceptible to missiles than the A10? The pilot wouldn't be as well protected either. Nor can they carry as much ordinance. Cheaper yes.

As some pointed out, the Army doesn't have many airfields.Why not look at a smaller attack helicopter, similar to the old Cobra? No need for airfields, more deployable than a fixed wing.

I'm not sure where the idea that the Army doesn't have runways came from. Almost all Army posts have them. It's how we get their equipment to theater... C-17 to Army Airfield, then head out to theater.

The Army also has a sizeable fleet of fixed wing aircraft already.

I have my opinions about the Army (read: infantry mafia) generals effectively employing armed fixed wing assets, but that's a different discussion.

My bad: army aircraft do not require _commissioned_ officers.

For my part, I would convert most all non-combat commissioned officers to warrant officers, while maintaining equivalent pay & perquisites & such. Do we really expect a fine surgeon & administrator of surgeons to lead a combat unit when he ought to be fixing up boys who get tore up? Do we really need to bother Congress to commission a shiny new S1 butterbar?