What might meet the rather loose OA-X requirements?

[Jackonicko]

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?

[Davef68]

"qualifying jets" is an interesting statement

[chevvron]

FMA Pucara? Slightly more up to date than the OV10 but designed for a similar role. Operated off grass in the Falklands.

[rigpiggy]

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

[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.

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!

[melmothtw]

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.

[Jackonicko]

Melmoth - were the A-29 a shoo in, why the bizarre 6000 ft runway requirement? Why such a high fuel burn?

[chevvron]

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.

[Jackonicko]

Can anyone give me an idea as to what jets might qualify given the fuel burn requirement?

[Jackonicko]

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!

[pr00ne]

Who on earth wants to "lightly attack" anything?

[rjtjrt]

6,000ft runway at what density altitude?

[Jackonicko]

Unspecified as far as I'm aware - rjtrtj

[Heathrow Harry]

"Who on earth wants to "lightly attack" anything?"


those who can't afford a $100mm stealth plane from LM???

[JG54]

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.

[Jackonicko]

"Who on earth wants to "lightly attack" anything?"


Those who want to avoid being associated with "drone strikes"????

[typerated]

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 ?

[West Coast]

You can't lump anything with an A together in one pile. Differing platforms for differing needs.

[JG54]

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.

[Jackonicko]

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.

[JG54]

See my earlier post regarding the 'hi' & 'lo' issue - for 'lo', I've said I believe the OV-10 to be a better solution than A-29 or AT-6, for any number of reasons but not limited to, inherent flexibility with twin - engined resilience.

I don't think anyone, least of all me, is advocating the A-10 as an attack 'panacea', although in a loitering battlefield environment, I can personally think of little, if anything, that's better.

And I'd love to know how 'cheap' those A-29s & AT-6s (along with their crews) would prove when the bad guys shoot back, or the threat changes.

[Jackonicko]

I'm with you on the OV-10, but I get the strong feeling that Boeing are no longer very interested in building a batch of OV-10Xs - a change from 2009.

[West Coast]

OV-10/AH1

JG

The Marine Corps needs differ and at the time the OV-10 flew for them and differ now greatly. The Cobra offered CAS at a very basic level of the MAGTF, the MEU where little or no host country considerations occur The other required a host country at the same basic level (even though it wasn't organic to a MEU), or if operating at a MEB or MEF force level, required you to trample down the doors to set up some sort of forward operating base.

These being closer in mission and deployability than other helo/fw combos you have listed, yet worlds apart and not to be considered in the same bucket.

[JG54]

West Coast

I have only made mention of OV-10 & A-10 as 'lo' and 'hi' solutions respectively, nor have I necessarily suggested they be used in concert (although it strikes me that this wouldn't be a bad thing), merely that they,IMHO, represent an 'ideal' solution at either end of the scale.

Typerated mentioned many differing types, both fixed wing and rotary, in his post - to which I then alluded in having played a role in the story of the A-10. Either in the sense of 'learning from' (A-4, A-1, F-5), offering a 'different' route (rotary, mainly - although he fails to mention AH-56, which is kind of where the A-10 tale begins), 'we can do that' (A-7) and 'let's replace it with this' (F-16 - and sundry, other types). :ok:

[GlobalNav]

"Who on earth wants to "lightly attack" anything?"


Those who want to avoid being associated with "drone strikes"????

Accountants, bean-counters - the kind that thrive until we get into a serious conflict and then the true warriors appear out of the woodwork - miraculously, God bless them.

[West Coast]

Jacko, good to see you reappear, in your absence were you reincarnated as a USAF General?

They seem to have an affinity for all jets, and supersonic ones at that. Economics are a reality of life in the multi faceted low intensity conflicts. Think of the logistical tail associated with a FJ presence when the scenario doesn't dictate the need.

Or asked another way, why on earth wouldn't I want a light attack aircraft given the economics, the scope and the threat levels? Channel your inner F-35:salesman as you reply.

[Jackonicko]

Thanks Westy!

I need no convincing as to the utility of cheap, turboprop-powered light attack aircraft which do not necessarily have a 'full-spectrum' capability for peer or near peer conflicts.

Putting aside the higher maintenance/parts requirement of FJ platforms, the fuel demand alone is significant - those who drew up the original OA-X Enabling Concept were clear in identifying that the FJ's "insatiable demand for convoys running the gauntlet of IEDs and ambushes" had been a significant source of casualties and cost.

That's why the present OA-X assessment is so puzzling - after sensibly and clear-sightedly narrowing down to a turboprop solution and a 3,000 ft max take off distance in the original OA-X Enabling Concept document in 2008-ish, they're suddenly talking about jets and a 6,000 ft take off for the soon-to-begin evaluation at Holloman.

I'd have thunk that the more different your OA-X is from an F-35, the less likely the US brass are to see it as a source of competition, or as a likely source of direct diversion of funds…..

[Davef68]

That's why the present OA-X assessment is so puzzling - after sensibly and clear-sightedly narrowing down to a turboprop solution and a 3,000 ft max take off distance in the original OA-X Enabling Concept document in 2008-ish, they're suddenly talking about jets and a 6,000 ft take off for the soon-to-begin evaluation at Holloman.


Perhaps it's as simple as the 'made in America' principle being applied.

Or are they looking at TX derivatives?

[Jackonicko]

Perhaps it's as simple as the 'made in America' principle being applied.

Or are they looking at TX derivatives?

The Textron AT-6 and Sierra Nevada A-29 are both US made - as would a Boeing OV-10x be!

[Melchett01]

I might be missing something, but why make life difficult? If you want a dedicated attack platform why not just admit they got it right with the Skyraider. Start with that, upgrade the avionics, put a DAS on it and don't muck it about so much you end up with a flabby mere rather than a thoroughbred.

Surely they learnt that post Korea when they unsuccessfully tried to use P-51s in the attack role having phased out the P-47?

I would also suggest that 'Attack' aviation is subtley different in ethos and mindset as well as capability. You can't just put a cannon and a PW on a FJ used to operating at 20,000ft+ and get the same results. It's about the whole package, they'd do well to remember that whatever they pick.

[JG54]

I might be missing something, but why make life difficult? If you want a dedicated attack platform why not just admit they got it right with the Skyraider. Start with that, upgrade the avionics, put a DAS on it and don't muck it about so much you end up with a flabby mere rather than a thoroughbred.


At the risk of coming across as a 'fanboi' (again), there's an (bought, paid for & already in service) A-10 at the door - says he'd like a word. :)

[Melchett01]

At the risk of coming across as a 'fanboi' (again), there's an (bought, paid for & already in service) A-10 at the door - says he'd like a word. :)

Yes, but that's assuming it even survives longer term in its current form to be considered as the basis for a replacement platform.

[JG54]

Yes, but that's assuming it even survives longer term in its current form to be considered as the basis for a replacement platform.

But surely, as I've said in earlier posts, it already meets or exceeds the requirement, save for sfc. It's received modern avionics, getting new wing sets, carries what you'd want it to, and also has that gun. Build more (and developed ones) if you want, but...

Sure, it might not be as 'cheap' to run as some of the proffered 'solutions', but it's here now, is proven to be easy to maintain in the field, easy to operate in austere surroundings & only needs one crew member. It's also threat adaptable, for such times as when the bad guys aren't just goat herds with guns, or angsty teens with MANPADS.

[Jackonicko]

The A-10A isn't a light attack and ISR aircraft for operating from austere forward airstrips. It isn't a two-seater. It isn't cheap to operate. It's a great aircraft, and it fulfils a similar role, but it isn't OA-X. Now whether more A-10As would be more useful than OA-X is an interesting and entirely legitimate question…..

[Jackonicko]

Can anyone tell me what sort of fuel flow figures would you expect from a Tucano, a Hawk, and a Jaguar?

[JG54]

The A-10A isn't a light attack and ISR aircraft for operating from austere forward airstrips. It isn't a two-seater. It isn't cheap to operate. It's a great aircraft, and it fulfils a similar role, but it isn't OA-X. Now whether more A-10As would be more useful than OA-X is an interesting and entirely legitimate question…..

You're missing the point, Jacko. I'm not suggesting that the A-10 (C, actually - not A) is a light attack platform, I'm suggesting it has infinitely more operational potential than anything else being looked at, rendering (in my mind) the OA-X programme moot. It covers all the requirements, and much, much more besides.

It is cheap to operate, (compared with anything else in the current inventory), it can operate from austere strips (and those high mounted engines are a much less risky proposition in doing so, compared with 'low hanging' props), pretty much everything is replaceable 'in the field' and any ISR ability you might think it lacks (check out the ROVER avionics update etc) is easily mitigated by podded equipment as may be required / carried. If you've a mind to (but why, given the ability to lug much more around?), they're easily converted to twin seaters, too (see YA10-B).

I dunno, maybe it's me - but it seems foolish to procure anything in these uncertain times with an operationally limited profile. How cheap or effective will these OA-X airframes be when they're sitting in the boneyard, or worse, smoking holes in the ground as a result of being tailored to a pretty specific asymmetric threat?

This whole issue really begs to be seen as the utter nonsense it is, if you ask me.

[Jackonicko]

I disagree. The point is to save money by using an aircraft tailored to today's conflicts (and to be able to supply to allies), and to keep hours off the dwindling fleets of F-16s, F-15s and A-10s, and to 'season' younger less experienced pilots quickly and cheaply. The USAF is big enough to be able to afford a small but significant force of OA-X, which makes perfect sense, for them, to me.

[Evalu8ter]

Jacko,
Your last comment is the prime driver behind the search for "Tier 3" capability. The West has burnt out its Tier 2 assets (F15, F16, F18, Harrier, Tornado, A10, AH64 etc) boring very expensive holes in the sky in a totally permissive A-A / RF environment for the past 15 years. This has resulted in forcing capital re-equipment/MLUs far earlier than planned in some cases, and chronic lack of availability in others (AH-64 and "classic" F-18 spring immediately to mind). Add in the simple direct operating costs, and as Jacko alludes to earlier, the real cost of a gallon of Gas at KAF, something that is cheaper to buy, fly and maintain in a semi-permissive threat environment is appealing. Provided it enables you to provide the protection/overwatch required whilst preserving/re-generating the hours/availability of your more scarce and expensive Tier 1/2 assets for any new intervention or near-peer confrontation then it is a "good thing". OV-10 has clear advantages with redundancy and payload, AT-6 probably edges it in DOCs. Scorpion is capable of providing the speed/height part of the equation, but maybe not other elements. We could always ask Boeing to dig out the A2D Skyshark drawings......A lightweight (even podded) DAS/ASE solution can provide adequate protection against MANPADS, and judicious use of modern armour could afford the required protection against Small Arms. A wing of such aircraft in the RAF, for example, would be also be a great way of keeping a pool of highly experienced aircrew in Reserve/Auxiliary billets current and available for "surges".

[melmothtw]

I disagree. The point is to save money by using an aircraft tailored to today's conflicts (and to be able to supply to allies), and to keep hours off the dwindling fleets of F-16s, F-15s and A-10s, and to 'season' younger less experienced pilots quickly and cheaply. The USAF is big enough to be able to afford a small but significant force of OA-X, which makes perfect sense, for them, to me.

I believe that the point is purely to deflect attention away from canning the A-10. The USAF says repeatedly that " OA-X is an experiment, not a competition", and that the capability assessment may not necessarily lead to any acquisition. Once the A-10 is gone, OA-X will go the same way to leave the USAF to follow its original path of having the F-35A perform the CAS role.

A wing of such aircraft in the RAF, for example, would be also be a great way of keeping a pool of highly experienced aircrew in Reserve/Auxiliary billets current and available for "surges".

The RAF didn't buy light attack turboprops when they actually had a use for them in Afghanistan, so there's no chance they are going to get them now or any time soon.

[West Coast]

JG

Can you expand on your statement, specific to the ease of converting them? Thanks.

If you've a mind to (but why, given the ability to lug much more around?), they're easily converted to twin seaters, too (see YA10-B).

[JG54]

JG

Can you expand on your statement, specific to the ease of converting them? Thanks.

It's my understanding that the original YA10-B conversion was achieved by inserting a 'plug' immediately forward of the bulkhead twixt fuselage and cockpit, with the structure ahead then being somewhat modified.

I also assume that, had the night / adverse variant achieved production, this arrangement would have been 'tidied' somewhat (the sole YA10-B has something of a 'patchwork' look to it). One would suppose that, should such an idea ever resurface, new cockpits would, by far be the better solution. Nonetheless, the structure aft (again, by my understanding) remained the same.

All of this would suggest to me, that such a process would be relatively straightforward, particularly if the jigs still exist - although I assume that you'll now attempt to disabuse me of this idea? :)

[West Coast]

I've had a look at the family model, actually like the looks. My issue with the ease statement is that according to data that was a pre-production model concerning me whether all mission essential equipment was accommodated as it was likely a demonstrator only. Same concern as to whether modern kit could easily be accommodated minus a major structural modification that takes it out of the realm of cheap and quick. As to the jigs, I have no clue, but have to factor in this is an aircraft that went out of production a number of decades ago.

Now we both know that if you write a big enough check, it could be fitted with two seats, but at what cost with regards to capabilities?

[JG54]

It does have a certain ugly beauty, doesn't it?

Well, as I said when first raising the issue of a twin seater - sure, it could be done, but with the recent upgrades & availability of podded tech being as it is, why would you need to?

I can't help but think that the 'looker' in the postulated A-29 / AT-6 IS the ISR fit! Those teeny little gunnery targets aren't going to be able to haul much in the way of sensors as well as weapons - again, not such a problem for the A-10.

[West Coast]

Wrt the jigs, the A-10 went out of production in 1984, Fairchild going out of business in 2003. Not to say there wasn't a visionary who decided to purchase all the bits needed should new frames be needed.

[JG54]

I know the jigs survived in to the 90s as a certainty - there were attempts to sell the line wholesale to Turkey for a few years from the late eighties onward.

I'd assumed that Boeing inherited them - they certainly seem capable of churning out the new wing sets with the minimum of fuss, at least.

[West Coast]

Quite possibly, which circles back to the write a big enough check thought.

[JG54]

But again, there are 300 + of the things already in service & upgraded (or being so). On my assumption that there really isn't an operationally valid reason (on the A-10, at least) for the second seat (remember, I've only said could, not should), that 'big enough cheque' can be spent keeping 'em in service for twenty odd years, instead.

Certainly, that cheque would be a lot smaller than the one written against a fleet of 'whatever' (and all associated costs therein), which may end up either sold off or in the boneyard before they've been amortised. I'm also quite sure that trying to replace the A-10 with the F-35 will be seen as pure folly soon enough, too.

[Jackonicko]

JG54,

I know that Evalu8ter is an air power professional. He gets exactly what OA-X is for.

Your dogged evangelism on behalf of the of the the A-10A and apparent inability to 'get' the OA-X makes me wonder whether you're an ex-A-10 man, or an enthusiast?

I don't mean to be rude, just asking…..

[JG54]

Jacko, I have no connection with the A-10 whatsoever, not even as a 'flag bearer' per se, save for acknowledging that it does what it does very well, and is already extant. Nor am I an air power professional.

I get, fully, what OA-X is for - you'll recall from earlier posts that if we're looking at this low - end on the spectrum of capabilities, my gut and intellectual belief, is that OV-10X seems the better fit and also seemingly has more utility.

What I Don't get, is WHY OA-X IS.

I believe it to be a flawed premise which may (or may not) result in the procurement of a potentially short - lived 'one trick pony', with no utility outside of a finely calculated set of parameters.

Let's see how the contenders perform on trial, I'm sure these 'light logistic tail' wonders will throw up all kinds of problems inconvenient to the desired requirement / specification. Even if they don't, I'm still left wondering, if costs are the driving consideration, just how much 'bang for the buck' or value these wee beasties will have produced by their OSD. Personally, I feel the whole life programme costs will be far, far in excess of those extra logistics, that extra fuel & associated costs an already inducted type (A-10) would incur over the same duration.

[DANbudgieman]

[QUOTE=JG54;9804942]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.

I don't know much about proof off concept. There are however at least two in very active daily use with the Philippine Air Force. They are often seen on TV earning their keep attacking the nutters in Marawi.

[ORAC]

Senate panel approves $1.2B to start US Air Force OA-X aircraft procurement (http://www.defensenews.com/articles/senate-panel-approves-12b-to-start-air-force-oa-x-aircraft-procurement)

[typerated]

Most people get the need.

And the waste of resources on something like this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PHqaXwb27SI
(F-15E's bombing a couple of bad guys)

But I don't see where a block of funding will come from. It seems the USAF has eyes bigger than it's belly.

Where in the queue for money will it come WRT B-2, T-X, K-46, F-35 and the keeping of the 'legacy' aircraft going as these are (to some degree) all late and over cost?

A light CAS machine or F-22 back into production?

I also find it interesting how the USMC has moved in the opposite direction.

[IcePaq]

That proposed modernized OV1 of a few years back comes to mind.

How about that huge lot of T28s semi disassembled that was for sale a while back?........fit them with turboprops?

Sounds like two sub-billion dollar ways to explore for a solution.