Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Aircrew Forums > Military Aviation
Reload this Page >

What might meet the rather loose OA-X requirements?

Military Aviation A forum for the professionals who fly military hardware. Also for the backroom boys and girls who support the flying and maintain the equipment, and without whom nothing would ever leave the ground. All armies, navies and air forces of the world equally welcome here.

What might meet the rather loose OA-X requirements?

Old 16th Jun 2017, 15:14
  #1 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Just behind the back of beyond....
Posts: 4,175
Received 3 Likes on 2 Posts
What might meet the rather loose OA-X requirements?

The last time the USAF looked at light attack (LAAR/LAS) they quickly concluded that they needed a turboprop, capable of operating from rough and short strips.

But for the upcoming OA-X capability demonstration, they seemed to have adopted rather looser criteria.

"Qualifying aircraft need to be able to support a high operations tempo of 900 flight hours per year for 10 years and have a 90% mission capable rate for day and night missions. The aircraft must be able to take off using a maximum runway length of 6,000 ft. and be equipped with secure tactical communications and the ability to hit stationary or moving targets day and night. In addition, qualifying jets must have a 2.5-hr. mission endurance with an average fuel flow of about 1,500 lb./hr. or less. The aircraft will also be evaluated for survivability, including infrared and visual signature."

6,000 ft? That's Odiham. (And it's longer than Northolt (5,535 ft), Biggin Hill (5,932 ft), Benson (5,981 ft) or Jersey International (5,560 ft).

I've seen Jaguars take off from most of those!

You'd have thought that being able to operate out of Booker (2,411 ft) or off White Waltham's short runway (3,051 ft) would be a better idea, for an aircraft that you might want to forward base, or operate off small road strips.

Jersey 5,560 ft

The fuel flow figures are puzzling, too. An A-10 would not qualify. Would a Hawk or an L-159, I wonder? What would a typical turboprop trainer achieve? And what about something like a Bronco?

Is it simply to allow the Scorpion to participate?
Jackonicko is offline  
Old 16th Jun 2017, 15:23
  #2 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Here
Posts: 1,703
Received 32 Likes on 21 Posts
"qualifying jets" is an interesting statement
Davef68 is offline  
Old 17th Jun 2017, 14:03
  #3 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Wildest Surrey
Age: 75
Posts: 10,799
Received 90 Likes on 63 Posts
FMA Pucara? Slightly more up to date than the OV10 but designed for a similar role. Operated off grass in the Falklands.
chevvron is offline  
Old 17th Jun 2017, 14:36
  #4 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: yyz
Posts: 95
Received 3 Likes on 3 Posts
There was a Pucara that had Garrett-10's but nothing came of it. Personally like the ov-10 as you could put a spec ops team in it for insertion

Last edited by rigpiggy; 17th Jun 2017 at 14:38. Reason: F@$$& spellcheck
rigpiggy is offline  
Old 17th Jun 2017, 15:13
  #5 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Manchester U.K.
Posts: 92
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I'd agree that, at the 'lo' end of the spectrum, a modernised OV - 10 seems a pretty good choice. Indeed, I seem to recall that a couple have recently been flying operationally to prove the validity & concept.

At the 'hi' end, I'm pretty sure the A - 10 fits the criteria perfectly (save for sfc, I suppose) - assuming the 2.5 hr mission duration includes transit as well as loiter. If not, a 600 gallon external tank has been trialled which would certainly take you well over 2.5 hrs.

I really don't know why you'd need to look further than the above. Certainly, in the case of the A - 10 - it's cheap, carries pretty much anything you might want to carry, it's built like an outhouse and frankly, if one appears over the battle space, it's a very brave soul indeed who doesn't soil himself and run like a girl... It's so tough, that not even the air force or congress can kill it!

Last edited by JG54; 17th Jun 2017 at 16:42. Reason: Addendum
JG54 is offline  
Old 18th Jun 2017, 10:55
  #6 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: The back of beyond
Posts: 2,118
Received 151 Likes on 77 Posts
Super Tucano, Super Tucano, and Super Tucano. All requirements drawn up with Super Tucano in mind. It's the Super Tucano.

OA-X isn't going to happen anyway. As soon the A-10 is canned, OA-X will be dropped and the USAF will go back to its original plan of having the F-35 perform the role.
melmothtw is offline  
Old 18th Jun 2017, 11:24
  #7 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Just behind the back of beyond....
Posts: 4,175
Received 3 Likes on 2 Posts
Melmoth - were the A-29 a shoo in, why the bizarre 6000 ft runway requirement? Why such a high fuel burn?
Jackonicko is offline  
Old 18th Jun 2017, 11:25
  #8 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Wildest Surrey
Age: 75
Posts: 10,799
Received 90 Likes on 63 Posts
Originally Posted by JG54
I'd agree that, at the 'lo' end of the spectrum, a modernised OV - 10 seems a pretty good choice. Indeed, I seem to recall that a couple have recently been flying operationally to prove the validity & concept.
Also one (ex GAF target tower) flying on the UK airshow circuit.
chevvron is offline  
Old 18th Jun 2017, 11:26
  #9 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Just behind the back of beyond....
Posts: 4,175
Received 3 Likes on 2 Posts
Can anyone give me an idea as to what jets might qualify given the fuel burn requirement?
Jackonicko is offline  
Old 18th Jun 2017, 11:33
  #10 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Just behind the back of beyond....
Posts: 4,175
Received 3 Likes on 2 Posts
The US Navy operated a pair of modernised OV-10Gs - borrowed from NASA - for a lengthy light attack evaluation (Combat Dragon II) which included a significant operational deployment. At one time Boeing stood ready to relaunch production of an OV-10X, subject to a minimum 100 aircraft order, but with the tie in with Paramount on the Mwari and the attack pretensions of their T-X contender I suspect they've decided against it. Certainly they did not offer to demonstrate the OV-10Gs in the soon to start OA-X fly off!
Jackonicko is offline  
Old 18th Jun 2017, 23:41
  #11 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: London/Oxford/New York
Posts: 2,921
Received 137 Likes on 62 Posts
Who on earth wants to "lightly attack" anything?
pr00ne is offline  
Old 19th Jun 2017, 03:18
  #12 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 926
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
6,000ft runway at what density altitude?
rjtjrt is offline  
Old 19th Jun 2017, 06:20
  #13 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Just behind the back of beyond....
Posts: 4,175
Received 3 Likes on 2 Posts
Unspecified as far as I'm aware - rjtrtj
Jackonicko is offline  
Old 19th Jun 2017, 07:16
  #14 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
"Who on earth wants to "lightly attack" anything?"


those who can't afford a $100mm stealth plane from LM???
Heathrow Harry is offline  
Old 19th Jun 2017, 11:41
  #15 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Manchester U.K.
Posts: 92
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Heathrow Harry


those who can't afford a $100mm stealth plane from LM???
Which leaves me wondering exactly what a new build A-10 would cost.

The wings, at least, are already back in production.
JG54 is offline  
Old 19th Jun 2017, 13:41
  #16 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Just behind the back of beyond....
Posts: 4,175
Received 3 Likes on 2 Posts
"Who on earth wants to "lightly attack" anything?"


Those who want to avoid being associated with "drone strikes"????
Jackonicko is offline  
Old 20th Jun 2017, 07:47
  #17 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: the far south
Posts: 607
Likes: 0
Received 32 Likes on 12 Posts
Might have missed a few but
thought we went down this road before?

AH-1
AH-64
A-4
A-7
A-10
AV-8
A-37
F-5
OV-10

and the answer was ?
typerated is offline  
Old 20th Jun 2017, 14:51
  #18 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: surfing, watching for sharks
Posts: 4,067
Received 43 Likes on 28 Posts
You can't lump anything with an A together in one pile. Differing platforms for differing needs.
West Coast is offline  
Old 20th Jun 2017, 15:11
  #19 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Manchester U.K.
Posts: 92
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by West Coast
You can't lump anything with an A together in one pile. Differing platforms for differing needs.
You can if you know the long and tortuous process which led to the A-10 in the first place, along with all the subsequent attempts to kill it by offering up 'insert name as appropriate' as a substitute / replacement.
JG54 is offline  
Old 20th Jun 2017, 16:47
  #20 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Just behind the back of beyond....
Posts: 4,175
Received 3 Likes on 2 Posts
The A-10 was intended to meet a very specific Cold War requirement. Fortuitously, it has proved remarkably good at a range of other missions, but is still not a universal A-for-Attack panacea, and is not a suitable substitute for cheap, long endurance turboprop light attack aircraft like the OV-10, A-29 or AT-6B, which is what the OA-X requirement is all about.
Jackonicko is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.