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.

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.

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.

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:

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.

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.

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…..

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!

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.

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.

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.

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…..

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

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.

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.

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".

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.

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.

JG

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