Its nasty, has implications that will affect US manufacturing (if the Brazilian plane is chosen) and has put the USAF in the uncomfortable position of having a contest that will be questioned no matter which airplane is chosen.
Why not simply pull A-10's out of mothballs, refurbish them and have them perform this mission? In its most basic form its not that much more sophisticated than the two contentders, is more robust, faster, can carry a heavier weapons load and if properly configured can have a similar time on station.
Additionally its designed for rough field use, its combat proven and should be more survivable than either of the other planes.
This is really a no brainer and would save money, help industry by tossing a bone to the refurb work (or if kept in house by the USAF, save money) and is an effective solution.
Quite honestly the A-10 is the airplane that the US Navy should have chosen for Imminent Fury. I can only wonder if the reason why it wasn't was due to a bit of interservice politics and perhaps a desire by SOCOM for a unique airplane?
Whatever the reason the plane to pick for the Light Air Support Mission is a plane the USAF already has---in abundance. The A-10. And if SOCOM decides that they need some in house attack planes and perhaps escorts for their helicopters then the A-10 should top that list too. Use what we have. That's the beginning of defense reform.
The main reason a prop was desired for this mission was low cost to operate and high loiter time. It's a COIN aircraft for use in a low threat environment. Sure the A-10 could do the job but then you run into the USAF just deciding to retire a large number as well as the A-10 eventually being retired completely in favor of the F-35.
ReplyDeleteThe issue really isn't the aircraft. It's the fact the USAF can't seem to be bothered to support the other services properly. When the US Army decides to operate some twin props for cost effective supply runs the USAF promptly steals the program and then a few years later cancels it.
The USAF was talking about a COIN wing a decade ago and here we still are without a single aircraft. What we have is the USAF cutting small cost effective aircraft that directly support troops and throw every spare dollar at fighter recap.
SOCOM really shouldn't have to operate their own A-10's, nor should the Army. If the USAF can't be bothered to undertake these basic missions frankly the other services might be served by just getting rid of the USAF, spreading most of the assets to the other services, and let the boys in blue soldier on in Space Command.
i totally disagree. the A-10 can to the counter insurgency mission just fine. the fact that they're retiring a bunch of them just means that you'll have spare parts aplenty. additionally the loiter time is a misnomer. the A-10 was also designed with high loiter time in mind and its engines are low maintenance and the A-10 is not known for high operating costs. besides the number of aircraft they're talking about buying makes the A-10 make even more sense.
ReplyDeletei wonder constantly about the air support mission and if the USAF is actually not performing it as desired. Elements of Power makes a case where the needs are being served and the push by the Army to get C-27's can in retrospect be seen as a type of infringement on USAF territory. but back to the A-10.
its the right plane and at the right price. the A-29 or AT-6 are just indulgences.
The A-10 isn't appropriate for the LAS requirement. This isn't a CAS aircraft. It's a partnership building trainer with some ISR and CAS capability. It's meant to train foreign pilots.
ReplyDeleteBesides, the USAF "supports the troops" far better with A-10s, F-16s, F-15s, B-52s, B-1s, Reapers, and so on.
If the USAF is retiring A-10's and does not see the need to continue to operate very many exactly who is going to operate "extra" A-10's for SOCOM?
ReplyDeleteIn any case the A-10 is the premier CAS aircraft in the world today and no aircraft, including the F-35, does that specific job better. COIN is not the same as CAS.
A Super Tucano can fly for 8+ hours. A-10's don't have that kind of loiter capability. The COIN mission as envisioned under Urgent Fury is mostly about ISR and the twin crew of the Super Tucano is far superior here than a single seat A-10. The Super Tucano costs around $500 an hour to operate vs $3,000+ for an A-10. The A-10 is not as capable in this specific role and cost six times as much to operate.
By way of comparison the USAF will eventually replace the A-10 with the F-35 which in some specific CAS profiles will not do the job as well and cost $30,000+ an hour to operate. The USAF isn't interested in operating cost effective aircraft whether it's the Super Tucano, A-10, C-27, etc. As an institution they will sacrifice everything on the Fighter Mafia alter.
Exactly how an aircraft that costs 1/6th the cost for flight hour to operate and does the specific mission far better can be called "indulgences" eludes me. The more expensive solution would normally be called an indulgence. The reason the USAF will never operate a COIN wing of cost effective aircraft is because it's a budget and force structure threat to the F-35.
It's not nearly that simple Lane.
ReplyDeleteThe Super T can only fly for 8+ hours with max external fuel, little to no armament, and VERY close to its airfield. What's its loiter time with a pair of 500lb bombs and a couple rocket pods, 200nm from base? How much time will it spend transiting to and from its loiter area at <280kts (loaded)?
Base them closer to the troops you say? Ok. How many troops will you need to sanitize the area around a FOB to ensure reasonably safe takeoffs and landings and maintain a secure airfield? How will its operating costs look once you have to fly in gas to a bunch of remote FOBs at $600/gallon, along with munitions? How much to sustain and support ground crews and associated support personnel at these FOBs?
Back home, how much to maintain another unique spares, support and training pipeline for an aircraft with a very limited mission set?
Nowadays, the long loiter role can be partially filled by UAVs. Yes, they have tactical and operational limitations, but do offer far more endurance at useful ranges than small, manned trainers.
Think Defense has two excellent posts detailing arguments against the “cheap COIN aircraft” idea.
http://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/2009/09/cheap-cascoin-is-an-illusion-%E2%80%93-lets-get-off-the-bandwagon/
http://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/2010/01/is-the-super-tucano-a-practical-option-for-the-raf/
Just replace his references to the Typhoon with F-teens or F-35s.
Now all this being said, I can see value in the training and partnership roles for this aircraft. And I can see value in a limited number of manned ISR/COIN/light CAS aircraft, but I don't particularly like the Super T or AT-6 for this mission. I think we can do it with something like an armed Cessna Caravan (AC-208), a modified, small bizjet, or even adding armament to the C-130.
The problem with that analysis is the program, Urgent Fury, was utilizing the aircraft for ISR, communications relay, etc. It did not revolve around weapons carriage. This isn't a program to build a new generation A-1.
ReplyDeleteThe author of the 2nd article you cite actually states he supports a COIN aircraft as a compliment for fast jets for the UK. Moreover, the specific SOCOM requirement is much more about ISR. It's far more about sensor load than weapons load.
In any case I don't see that my opinion matters. The requirement was drawn up by SOCOM and the USN and they tested under Urgent Fury one or more Super Tucano's and were satisfied it met requirements. SOCOM still wants the aircraft.
Let's take a step back for a moment.
ReplyDeleteImminent Fury was an urgent operation request by SOCOM for four light ISR/strike aircaft. It was blocked by Congress when the foreign Super T was selected.
LAS was a USAF program to buy light trainer/ISR aircraft for partnership building. It apparently was canned to save money as a result of the pivot away from COIN by the US military.
Sol brought up using the A-10. It clearly isn't suited for either role.
Lane, you accused the USAF of not "supporting the other services properly". The current status of these programs is not evidence of this. The first was a Navy program. The second was a partnership building program with no cross-service support goals.
The USAF is buying 37 MC-12 Liberty ISR aircraft to support ground forces. Last time I read, the USAF had plans to buy over 300 armed Reaper UAVs. Arming the Liberties wouldn't be that difficult but is also largely unnecessary, given all of the other assets in the USAF inventory.
The USAF is retiring old A-10s and spending billions to upgrade over 200 to the A-10C standard, with the intention of keeping them around for decades (2040 at the latest).
So the notion that the USAF isn't supporting other services "properly" is HIGHLY subjective.
Smitty.
ReplyDeletetake another step back. how is a light ISR/Strike platform better supported with an A-29 than an A-10?
if you're talking about bolt on sensors the A-10 can carry more. if you're talking about payload then the A-10 can carry more. if you're talking about partnership missions then you'd better be talking about aircraft with a higher performance value than the A-29.
no one wants it. the Iraq's are buying F-16's...the Afghans have operated Russian Hind attack helicopters and Mig-21's.
we can want them to operate A-29's or AT-6's but no one in the world wants to...not even African air forces are thrilled by that notion.
the A-10 would make sense as a cheap, highly effective ground platform that many would love to get. but the USAF won't offer it because of their desire to transition away from that platform...not because of its effectiveness or lack of.
The USAF IS NOT TRANSITIONING AWAY FROM THE A-10!
ReplyDeleteThey are spending billions to re-wing 200 of them and upgrade their systems with the intent of keeping them around for a few more DECADES. Do other countries really want to buy the other worn out airframes? It doesn't seem so.
Ok. I retract the part about the A-10 not being able to do the Imminent Fury mission. It may be able to, it may not. I'm not sure. If the thought is to have a handful of cheap aircraft that SOCOM controls and uses from austere basing, then it might not be a good fit. If they really just need more ISR coverage, then existing platforms can probably cover them (e.g. A-10, F-teens, MC-12s, AC-130s, bombers, UAVs).
The A-10 is not cheap to operate in comparison to the A-29 and AT-6, but it is an in-service aircraft, which counts for a lot.
Here's an interesting article from Air & Space Power Chronicles concerning the need partnership and foreign training aircraft with regards to the 6th SOS,
http://www.airpower.au.af.mil/airchronicles/cc/WJohnson.html
Not 100% relevant to this discussion but it is instructive as to the needs.
Here's another, more up-to-date version,
http://www.airpower.au.af.mil/apjinternational/apj-c/2011/2011-1/2011_1_04_hock-E.pdf