AT-6 Tested for Light Air Defense Missions

[MIKE]

http://defensetech.org/2011/09/21/at-6-tested-for-light-air-defense-missions/#more-14658

[coudano]

Pretty BA platform if you ask me...



Iraq Air Force pre-ordered a bunch...
meh

[Flying Pig]

That is going to be an awesome mission.  If I were a new AF Pilot I think Id lean towards that.  Youd end up with all the quick in and out, close air support missions where nobody wants anybody to know the US was there!

Then Id retire and fly the AT802U for the US State Department as a grossly overpaid DynCorp contract pilot!!  Oooooops, Im sorry.....Im not suggesting the US State Department uses them

http://www.802u.com/

[lordmonar]

Sounds really cool.......but listening to the USAF internal politics....I don't know how far this is going to go.

[Flying Pig]

So none of them are excited about single engine prop-jobbies?

[coudano]

same thing got said about the A10 but now they are lovin it
meh

[lordmonar]

same thing got said about the A10 but now they are lovin it
meh

Only those unlucky enough to into them.  The USAF was all ready to dump the A-10 ten years ago....but the Army told them that they would take them if the USAF dropped them.

With the budget battle going on right now with the F-35 and F-22, new tanker, next-gen CSAR copter and of course UAVs......getting light attack aircraft is IMHO going to be a long shot.

[coudano]

when you can buy a FLEET of at6b's for the cost of ONE airframe of some of the others,
and it's already in production,
the budget battle supports the LAAR mission, rather than working against it.

[lordmonar]

Now you have to justify the mission.

Not saying that there is not a need for LAAR.....there is also a need for a multi-role joint strike fighter as well.

you can buy a lot of LAARs but they can't do the heavy strike mission....but the heavy strike aircraft can do the LAAR mission.

So the question is.....is there enough of a need for LAARs to buy that platform IN ADDITION to all the joint strike fighters you need to buy?

I don't know one way or the other.

I do know that that the pilot community in the USAF are not all going gaga over the idea of an LAAR platform.  They all want the F-22....because......it's cooler.

[davidsinn]

When I first say the title I went WTF? Then I realized the OP goofed on the aircraft type.

This is an AT-6



This is a T-6A:



Note there is a difference.

[lordmonar]

A T-6 reconfigured for the attack roll would be either an A-6 or an AT-6.......not to be confused with the old WWII AT-6.

Example  T-37 vice the A-37 back in the dark ages.

[davidsinn]

A T-6 reconfigured for the attack roll would be either an A-6 or an AT-6.......not to be confused with the old WWII AT-6.

Example  T-37 vice the A-37 back in the dark ages.

Correct. But then it would be AT-6A or more likely AT-6B since I'm sure it would get a new mod designation.

[SarDragon]

Won't be an A-6. Grumman already used that one up.

[MIKE]

When I first say the title I went WTF? Then I realized the OP goofed on the aircraft type.

Copied exactly as appears in the article.

[Chief2009]

The turboprop plane flew in one of U.S. Northern Command's Falcon Virgo ASA exercises out of Andrews Air Force Base, Md., last November where it intercepted a slow, Cessna-style propeller plane four times in the skies above Washington DC, said Derek Hess, Hawker Beechcraft's director of AT-6 development, yesterday during a briefing at the conference.

What do you want to bet it was a GA-8?

[blackrain]

That is going to be an awesome mission.  If I were a new AF Pilot I think Id lean towards that.  Youd end up with all the quick in and out, close air support missions where nobody wants anybody to know the US was there!

Then Id retire and fly the AT802U for the US State Department as a grossly overpaid DynCorp contract pilot!!  Oooooops, Im sorry.....Im not suggesting the US State Department uses them

http://www.802u.com/

I've asked for one for Christmas since 2010 When I retire I could dust crops.

[coudano]

It's being called the AT6B

As the article references, heavy fighters can do the LAAR for 20-30 minutes at a time.
And they aren't really "light" just because you put a little less ordinance on them.
The AT6B has a much longer duration.  It's even cheaper to operate than predators and reapers.

You also don't need a stealth jet against a bunch of guys with ak47's and RPG's.

The AT6B can fly and fight lower and slower over your cave man insurgency.  The concept and value was beyond proven in Vietnam.

The AT6B will burn less fuel, which is no joke in the logistics chain.
Speaking of logistics, how many T6's does the USAF already operate?  Parts aplenty and experience already on hand.
How much cheaper is it to keep flying than a stealth turbine?

They could very literally build an entire LAAR *FLEET* by just building a few less F35's.
They are supposed to build something like 2,500 F35's,
If they reduced that by only 10 tails, at $153M each, they could build 255 AT-6B's at $6 million each.
More than enough, I should think, at least for a good start.

Besides, EVERY USAF pilot goes through the T6, it would be pretty quick upgrade training, I would think.
The pipeline is already there.

Obviously this all makes WAYYYYYY too much sense to be adopted in force by the Air Force brass.


The USAF needs to let go of the raptor, the program is done.
Some guys will get to fly it, and it will be awesome for them,
and it will very likely never see combat, at least the combat it was designed for.
That is, if they ever figure out how to quit knocking pilots out by leaking fuel fumes into the cabin, which currently has the entire fleet grounded.

Just the money they will spend fixing that bug in the F-22's, would buy some dozens of AT6B's.

[NIN]

When I first say the title I went WTF? Then I realized the OP goofed on the aircraft type.

This is an AT-6



This is a T-6A:

And this is an AT-6B:

Note there is a difference.

[NIN]

BTW, much to Dano's point:

The AFSOC community wanted to buy "Pocket Gunships" a few years back: C-27J's with 30 & 40mm guns and stand off PGMs.  Would have been a hell of a lot cheaper than a C-130J gunship, and again: shorter logistics tail, newer airframe, proven weapons platforms, cheaper to acquire and maintain.

Nope. Stickin' with the Herk.  Which honestly is fine, but its still an example of how we continue to fight the last war (or, sometimes, the one before that).

[coudano]

the LAAR mission is also /ideal/ for a FAC role,
marking targets for the heavies to come in and hit

A lot of times our heavies CANT ENGAGE because they can't get a reliable fix on a target, from 25,000 ft.
and be /sure/ that they aren't going to frat our guys on the ground

Put this guy down there to mark the targets and let them unload on the phosphorous plume to their hearts content, and then go home and drink a shot of weed

[Al Sayre]

Other Contenders:

AT-802U http://www.scribd.com/doc/16228033/Air-Tractor-At802u-Brochure

PA-48 (based on a turboprop version of the P-51  http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=614

[coudano]

AT-802U http://www.scribd.com/doc/16228033/Air-Tractor-At802u-Brochure

Can't see out of it.
Carries less ord.
Wheels don't retract (blocks the sensor ball).

PA-48 (based on a turboprop version of the P-51  http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=614

More like it but never made it out of experimental/testing


The AT6B is already operational and in production...
Just sayin.

[Pump Scout]

There was a nice article in Combat Aircraft a month or two ago about the AT-6 platform. The idea of running two aircraft on 82 scheduled sorties with zero down aircraft on less fuel than a two ship of F-15E's, delivering more payload, is pretty appealing. And with the type already in the USAF inventory, transition would be a snap. Seems a couple A-10 drivers doing some of the sorties blew out tires because they were used to landing at higher speeds, but that was the only damage/maintenance issues that came up.

[Flying Pig]

Not to mention, dont all AF pilots start off in that aircraft?  it wouldnt even be a transition.  They are already qualed in it.

[Flying Pig]

AT-802U http://www.scribd.com/doc/16228033/Air-Tractor-At802u-Brochure

Can't see out of it.
Carries less ord.
Wheels don't retract (blocks the sensor ball).

PA-48 (based on a turboprop version of the P-51  http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=614

More like it but never made it out of experimental/testing


The AT6B is already operational and in production...
Just sayin.

In my post, I was talking about flying it in my retirement job as a secret mercenary ninja pilot.  What is your experience with it?

[ol'fido]

When I first say the title I went WTF? Then I realized the OP goofed on the aircraft type.

This is an AT-6



This is a T-6A:



Note there is a difference.

The T-6 was originally called the AT-6 back in WW2 because trainers were divided by the type of training they were used for. So the Stearman was the PT-17 for "Primary" Trainer. After primary training, student pilots would fly "Basic" Trainers such as the BT-13 Vultee "Vibtrator". Finally, the went to "Advanced" Training where those going into fighters or single engine types would fly the AT-6. Later, all trainers received the simple "T" for "Trainer" designation when the AF split. This was at the same time the P-51 Mustang became the F-51.

[blackrain]

AT-802U http://www.scribd.com/doc/16228033/Air-Tractor-At802u-Brochure

Can't see out of it.
Carries less ord.
Whesels don't retract (blocks the sensor ball).

PA-48 (based on a turboprop version of the P-51  http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=614

More like it but never made it out of experimental/testing



The AT6B is already operational and in production...
Just sayin.

As I understand the 802 is already pretty well armored around the cockpit compared to some in that category and a fixed taildragger is simpler at (least maintenance wise) for 3rd world militaries. Not mention a better rough field performer so it does have some advantages