AF getting light airplanes again

[RiverAux]

The AF Times has this article:

Air Force requests 100 light-attack planes

By Bruce Rolfsen - Staff writer
Posted : Monday Aug 3, 2009 16:49:24 EDT
   
Air Force pilots could be flying light-attack airplanes in less than three years.

On July 27, the Air Force took an early step toward buying small airplanes able to fly attack and reconnaissance missions. The "request for information" came from Air Force Materiel Command's Aeronautical Systems Center.

According to the center, the Air Force seeks to buy 100 fixed-wing aircraft starting in 2012 and declare initial operational capability in 2013. Air Combat Command would operate and maintain the planes.

Specifications call for the plane to have two seats, four positions for weapons or external fuel tanks and an onboard laser designator. The plane must also have the ability to carry a minimum of two 500-pound bombs, launch 2.75-inch rockets and fire a gun.

Other standard gear requirements include an armored cockpit, night-vision compatible cockpit displays and defensive measures such as chaff and flares.

The warplane should also be able to land on runways 6,000 feet or shorter, cruise at about 200 mph and have an unrefueled range of almost 1,000 miles.

Now, I'm sure that these will be a bit hardier than our 182s, but it does open up some interesting possibilities for CAP as far as flight training and other uses of CAP aircraft.  Over the long run, maybe there might be some possibilities for these to be transferred to CAP when the AF no longer needs them as used to be a common practice. 

Its about time the AF realized that a lot of what the UAVs are doing could very safely be done by manned aircraft at a much cheaper price. 

[Short Field]

http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2009/07/usaf-officially-launches-light.html

[SarDragon]

Gee, sounds like they should open the OV-10 line again. It's already got many of those features, and an upgrade from OTS parts would be pretty easy.

[ol'fido]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piper_PA-48_Enforcer

[RiverAux]

Well, if thats what they're looking at, I withdraw my comment about them being surplused to CAP at some point. 

But, that does look like a fun plane to fly.  Love the WWII fighter look. 

[RiverAux]

But, possibly of more relevance to CAP would be this program to buy 6passenger aircraft:
http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2009/07/us-air-force-seeks-60-airlifte.html such as Hawker Beechcraft King Air 350, Cessna 208 Grand Caravan and EADS CASA C-212.

[Flying Pig]

My money says they go with the PC-9.  The USAF is already using it.

[davidsinn]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piper_PA-48_Enforcer

That is one bad airplane  That thing would ruin your day in a real quick hurry.

[NIN]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piper_PA-48_Enforcer

That is one bad airplane  That thing would ruin your day in a real quick hurry.

Lets see: 2500+ hp, big prop, 75% more HP (and thus torque) than a P-51, with a tailplane only like 10% larger than the -51.  Something tells me that this baby has the ability to ruin the pilot's day really quick, too.  And since T-55-L-9s are not made anymore, you're looking at a T-55L714 or something... Gotta derate from 4500hp to something less.

I'm thinking you should be looking at something a little more.. stout:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AD-6_Skyraider

[SarDragon]

Too many moving parts.

I still like the OV-10.

[bosshawk]

Hmmmmm: wonder whether or not there are any OV-10s left in the boneyard?  Nah, too old and too outdated for the modern AF.  Need to spend a billion or two redesigning a new OV-10 or a new OV-1.

[SarDragon]

It looks like the inventory is a big zero. Of the listed out-of-production models, I think the most likely candidate for restarting a line would be the OV-10. It is the most modern/recent of that group, was designed specifically for the intended role.

The OV-10 Bronco was a multi-purpose, light attack aircraft acquired by the Marine Corp for observation squadrons to conduct visual reconnaissance missions. The OV-10A is a twin-turboprop short takeoff and landing aircraft conceived by the Marine Corps and developed under an Air Force, Navy, and Marine Corps tri-service program.
In October 1964, the Navy awarded a contract to North American to design a Light Armed Reconnaissance Aircraft (LARA) for the Marine Corps. Two years later, the LARA had developed into a tri-service program to provide a Counter-Insurgency (COIN) aircraft for the United States Armed Forces. The first production OV-10A was ordered in 1966 and its initial flight took place in August 1967. HML-267 accepted the first article for the Marine Corps in February 1968. A total of 356 Broncos were accepted for Navy and Marine Corps use and for foreign military sales.

As for a redesign, I think an upgrade would suffice. The basic airframe is still sound engineering, and an avionics upgrade wpuld provide a sufficient weight reduction to at least partly off set any weight increases from a weapons upgrade.

They are relatively simple to maintain and there are likely some spares still available, since CalFire and some overseas operators still fly them.

[DC]

I vote for Hawker Beech's proposed mod to the T-6A, the AT-6B.

The Air Force is already flying the T-6, so the maintenance and training infrastructure is already in place, and it's a proven, capable airframe. It should also be fairly easy to produce, since the T-6 is still in production, it wouldn't be too much trouble for them to modify a few for that purpose. They might even be able to retrofit T-6s already in service, like with the AT-38s they use for training new fighter jocks.

Over the long run, maybe there might be some possibilities for these to be transferred to CAP when the AF no longer needs them as used to be a common practice.

Not if, per the USAF requirements, the aircraft includes ejection seats, a turbine engine(s), and built-in weapons systems...

[Gunner C]

My vote and recommendation goes to the T-28D Nomad.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-28_Trojan

It was used extensively by AFSOC in Southeast Asia.  It has a good payload, it's a proven airframe, it has two seats, and they just need to upgrade the engine (if USAF has its heart set on a turboprop).

[ol'fido]

They did have a turbo-prop prototype of the AT-28. It was the YAT-28. I remeber seeing it in an aviation magazine in the late 70's/ early 80's. I believe it was Air Progress which isn't even published anymore.

[Gunner C]

I remember that.  Sweet!

[jeancalvinus]

I second the motion on the sandys. the skyraider was an effective CAS bird in Nam and is quite rugged.

they even shot down 2 MIGs in 'NAM. However, it was extremely vulnerable to SAMs (as would be the new bird the AF wants), even with ECM and chaff it would require a very low level ingress and egress. unless of course it is designed for LIC.

[SarDragon]

The March 2010 issue of the Air & Space Smithsonian magazine has an article about the military's latest look at the Bronco. Boeing is apparently pitching an upgraded version to the services.

Available here.

[PHall]

I second the motion on the sandys. the skyraider was an effective CAS bird in Nam and is quite rugged.

they even shot down 2 MIGs in 'NAM. However, it was extremely vulnerable to SAMs (as would be the new bird the AF wants), even with ECM and chaff it would require a very low level ingress and egress. unless of course it is designed for LIC.

We already have a plane that does all of that, you may have even heard about it. It's called the A-10.

[SarDragon]

Well, from what I've read about the requirements, it fails on two counts - too fast, and only one seat, the latter actually being the more serious of the two.

[CadetProgramGuy]

The March 2010 issue of the Air & Space Smithsonian magazine has an article about the military's latest look at the Bronco. Boeing is apparently pitching an upgraded version to the services.

Available here.

Take a look at the video on the link.....Have a 172 or 182 do those taxi tests......

[Climbnsink]

This might work: http://www.aurora.aero/TacticalSystems/DA42.aspx

[Senior]

I agree that the OV-10 would be a good choice.  It has already
been proven in combat.  That video from A&Space seems to be showing a plane with the engine smoking.  I have seen some Broncos
on the NASA channel in NASA colors.  I wonder if they will put the pilots in a titanium bathtub?  I would say the Skyraider is my second
choice.  Proven combat record, can ruin the bad guys day.  Taildragger
though.  If I had all the money in the world I would have the OV-10
as a personal aircraft.  That looks like one fun  plane to fly.

[Gunner C]

The only problem with the A-1 is that it has a reciprocating engine.  The military, with very few exceptions, has no avgas at bases.  The OV-10 is a great aircraft but is lightly (if at all) armored doesn't carry a great deal of weapons.  The A-1 carries more bombs than a B-17, not to mention an A-1 got an air-to-air victory against a MiG. 

I've seen a proposed resurrection of the Mustang with lots of bombs and a turbine engine.  It was mentioned that one of the downsides was "tail dragger."  Who cares?  It takes a few hours to learn to land one if you're a tricycle guy.

[MikeD]

I agree that the OV-10 would be a good choice.  It has already
been proven in combat.  That video from A&Space seems to be showing a plane with the engine smoking.  I have seen some Broncos
on the NASA channel in NASA colors.  I wonder if they will put the pilots in a titanium bathtub?  I would say the Skyraider is my second
choice.  Proven combat record, can ruin the bad guys day.  Taildragger
though.  If I had all the money in the world I would have the OV-10
as a personal aircraft.  That looks like one fun  plane to fly.

NASA Langley Research Center in Hampton VA had at least one.  I'm not sure if they have one, they are pretty short on full-sized aircraft now.  Dryden is the main flight research/test center now, that has most of the aircraft and all the fighters. 

[DC]

Well, from what I've read about the requirements, it fails on two counts - too fast, and only one seat, the latter actually being the more serious of the two.

Wow. I don't think I've ever heard the A-10 described as being too fast.

[SarDragon]

Doesn't fly slow enough.