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?

"qualifying jets" is an interesting statement

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

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

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!

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.

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

Also one (ex GAF target tower) flying on the UK airshow circuit.

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

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!

Who on earth wants to "lightly attack" anything?

6,000ft runway at what density altitude?

Unspecified as far as I'm aware - rjtrtj

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


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.

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


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

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 ?

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.

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.