Everyone is excited (well a few people are anyway) about the possibilities that a Tucano or AT-6 could bring to the USAF...particularly in the Special Ops realm.
Few remember that the USAF has had some pretty awesome clean sheet designs that they refused to even fund...
How about the Ratun Ares Concept?
Or if that does nothing for you then how about the SM-27 Machete?
I'm not throwing stones at the Air Force on this.
I happen to believe that future air support will require larger, higher performing aircraft in order to be successful and survivable. But the point remains. If this is a valid requirement then we can do better than the Super Tucano.
Few remember that the USAF has had some pretty awesome clean sheet designs that they refused to even fund...
How about the Ratun Ares Concept?
Or if that does nothing for you then how about the SM-27 Machete?
I happen to believe that future air support will require larger, higher performing aircraft in order to be successful and survivable. But the point remains. If this is a valid requirement then we can do better than the Super Tucano.
Better is an entirely relative term. The A-10 is overall a far better attack aircraft than a Super Tucano but that doesn't mean it's always better.
ReplyDeleteThe program for the Super Tucano was mainly for a COIN aircraft doing mostly ISR in a low threat environment. For ISR and communications relay the Super Tucano and it's higher time on station and lower speed can be the better solution. In terms of cost effectiveness the A-10 has a cost per flight hour more than 10 times higher. If the Super Tucano can do the job then IMO doing it ten times cheaper is way better.
As for the other designs it's tough not to get excited by Burt Rutan's work but Ares is actually over 20 years old now and Rutan retired a couple years back. In any case one can debate whether the USAF should operate dedicated attack aircraft and/or whether they should have a COIN aircraft.
Somehow the notion of flying a cost effective attack aircraft was entirely thrown away in the USAF by deciding to replace the A-10 with a more expensive strike fighter. The entire notion being rather ridiculous.
Certainly many CAS missions are well served by high flying aircraft dropping JDAM's. If this is the profile I'd submit the worst aircraft for this is a strike fighter absent a high threat environment. A MQ-9 has far higher loiter time and a heavy bomber far more responsive.
For those times one does have to go eyes on low and slow, and those times have not been entirely replaced, a strike fighter is not the proper aircraft. Moreover, even if one assumed a strike fighter is as capable and as survivable doing CAS below the cloud base (weather still happens) it's far more expensive than cheaper attack aircraft to both purchase and operate.
not buying it Lane. everyone runs to the ISR canard to explain why the prop driven Tucano is needed but that makes no sense! a predator that we have tons of can spend far more time on station. at a cheaper price than a Tucano!
ReplyDeleteso price is not the issue. the issue is and always was the fact that the USAF was in essence seeking to build partnership missions with African air forces and they had the idea that they could fly in, in a propeller driven airplane and steer those forces away from the latest Sukhoi.
its bullshit reasoning but its was there. and please don't hit me with the escort V-22 mission profile either. that's also bullshit. the Marine Corps has experimented with that and found that Harriers are the way to go when it comes to escorting those airplanes. i doubt a Tucano fully loaded could keep up.
so in essence like i said at the start, the very notion of a Tucano was BS and the only way to solve the light weight fighter role is with a clean sheet design specifically designed for the mudfighter role...not an evolved trainer.
It's not an either/or argument.
ReplyDeleteWe will have A-10s till the 2040s, MQ-9s (and beyond), and the JSF working at the same time.
If the treat demands it, then send in JSF.
If it's a low threat but you need a bigger punch, send in the A-10.
If you only need Hellfire/JAGM, 2.75 FFIRs, or a 500lb LGB (and speed is not a factor) then send in the MQ.
Sol you're missing that originally it wasn't a USAF program but a SOCOM program under the USN, Urgent Fury, that defined the requirements and these were ISR, communications relay, FAC, and CAS. There's no question that COIN aircraft means very low threat environment within this context and it's not going to be operated in the face of higher threats.
ReplyDeleteIf a MQ-1/9 could do the job then the requirement wouldn't exist right? Remember this isn't something the USAF wanted. They were supposed to operate a COIN wing to support the other services but kept putting it off and eventually killed it. COIN is seen as single role and not worth keeping around long term even though it's the thing the US military does the most the past 100 or so years. The USAF not having at least one wing of COIN aircraft is negligence.