User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 2/23/2020 2:32:36 PM EDT
https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/weapons/a30916692/armed-overwatch-light-attack-aircraft/
U.S. Special Operations Command plans to purchase up to 75 “armed overwatch” planes that will conduct intelligence, reconnaissance, and even strike missions. The planes will begin replacing older U-28 Draco aircraft currently in heavy use around the world. The news comes as the U.S. Air Force officially backs out of a similar program to purchase a large fleet of light attack aircraft. Special Operations Command, a military command overseeing U.S. special operation units from across the armed services, wants to field an “armed overwatch” plane within five years, drawing from existing light aircraft attack offerings. An armed overwatch plane might fly in the vicinity of special operations troops on the ground, tracking enemies near them while providing the ability to launch short-notice air strikes. The plane would operate in theaters with a relatively low air defense threat, such as Somalia, Syria, or Afghanistan. Thanks to the U.S. Air Force, SOCOM will be able to pick from a pool of known aircraft. The U.S. Air Force has conducted extensive tests of the Sierra Nevada/Embraer A-29 Super Tucano and Beechcraft AT-6 Wolverine (pictured at the top of this article) for the service’s own OA-X program. OA-X was a requirement for a light attack aircraft, and the Air Force was allegedly interested in buying up to 300 of them for special operations and counterrorism duties. The Air Force finally stated earlier this week OA-X was dead and the service would not move forward with the program. SOCOM is asking for $106 million to get the ball rolling on an eventual purchase of up to 75 armed overwatch planes. Apparently the U.S. Air Force does not see a pressing need for the planes but SOCOM, the command that would have used OA-X most often, most certainly does. SOCOM will almost certainly buy one of the two planes, using the Air Force’s testing data from the last three years to make a determination. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/23/2020 3:36:56 PM EDT
[#1]
 StratPost | Beechcraft AT-6 Wolverine at #PAS15 The AT-6 features a crew of two seated in tandem under a large, largely unobstructed canopy located at the center of the design. The engine - a single Pratt & Whitney PT6A-68D turboprop engine outputting at 1,600 horsepower - is mounted at the extreme front end of the slim fuselage driving a four-bladed propeller assembly. The downward-sloping nature of the nose assembly allows for excellent vision out of the cockpit and wings are low-set against the fuselage. Each straight appendage sits at the center of the fuselage length and is cleared to carry a variable stores set - primarily gun pods (12.7mm heavy machine gun), cannon pods (20mm automatic), rocket pods (unguided and laser-guided) and small conventional/laser-guided drop bombs (250lb/500lb) across its six (MIL-STD-1760) external hardpoints (four are plumbed for external fuel stores and seven total hardpoints are available). Unlike some other light strike aircraft designs the AT-6 supports laser-guided missiles. The empennage is relatively short, home to a single clipped vertical tail fin and low-set horizontal planes. The undercarriage is of a tricycle arrangement and fully retractable. Range of this compact aircraft is listed at 2,895 kilometers (1,563 nautical miles). The entire AT-6 weapons suite includes support for many US- and NATO-standard munitions: Mk 81 General-Purpose Bomb, Mk 82 General-Purpose Bomb, GBU-12 "Paveway II", GBU-49 "Enhanced Paveway II", GBU-58 "Paveway II", GBU-59 "Enhanced Paveway II" bombs. Missile support is limited to the AGM-114 Hellfire anti-tank missile. As one of the few current aircraft to support laser-guided rockets, the AT-6 handles APKWS, TALON and GATR series 2.75" guided rocket types. Practice bombs can be used for weapons training. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/23/2020 3:56:58 PM EDT
[#2]
Those things are fuckin sexy, if I won the Powerball I'd order one myself.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/23/2020 11:11:47 PM EDT
[#3]
Again we see the Air Force has not much interest in ground attack planes.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/23/2020 11:18:18 PM EDT
[#4]
SO, who's gonna FLY THEM????
AF dudes, or Army CWO's????? And, anyone who say's "Enlisted Pilots", it won't happen.... The AF (Fighter) Pilot Mafia won't allow it..... |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/23/2020 11:35:33 PM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
SO, who's gonna FLY THEM???? AF dudes, or Army CWO's????? And, anyone who say's "Enlisted Pilots", it won't happen.... The AF (Fighter) Pilot Mafia won't allow it..... Which leaves Army CWO's to fly'em- which is a good thing. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/24/2020 1:46:39 PM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Doubt it would be AF since they didn't want'em and if they say "we have to fly them", would like them saying we fucked up- which ain't gonna happen. Which leaves Army CWO's to fly'em- which is a good thing. This is exactly what they did to the C-27 Spartan program, and screwed the Army Guard biggly. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/24/2020 3:46:24 PM EDT
[#7]
The USAF has no Congressionaly designated authority to stop the Army from flying armed fixed wing aircraft. They will be training Army pilots to fly these things and initially will have a heavy footprint of exchange pilots running them.
After the USAF figures out that they could add these airframes to every drone unit and increase those units staffing, they will want the program and its money after all. For permissible environments, we could save billions of dollars spent flying fighters and run the A29 instead. The mission set and bomb load capability is almost idenical to the Reaper. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/24/2020 8:35:19 PM EDT
[#8]
Who is flying those Dracos today?
That’s likely who will be flying its replacement “tomorrow”. Tomorrow is in quotes because this is a Popular Mechanics article listing Air Force magazine as its source so.... double LOL. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/25/2020 11:09:05 AM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Who is flying those Dracos today? That’s likely who will be flying its replacement “tomorrow”. Tomorrow is in quotes because this is a Popular Mechanics article listing Air Force magazine as its source so.... double LOL. Army pilots would be a longshot - not a bet I would make. This has been an identified need for quite a while - broncos were un-scrapped and have been used for a while with navy/af pilots. I would suspect this idea was started by the navy/af pilots familiar with the aircraft - neither the a29 nor the t6 are particularly good aircraft for the job but the "work" has been done to get them operational so it would be a relatively simple "buy and fly" proposition. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/25/2020 5:18:35 PM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The USAF has no Congressionaly designated authority to stop the Army from flying armed fixed wing aircraft. They will be training Army pilots to fly these things and initially will have a heavy footprint of After the USAF figures out that they could add these airframes to every drone unit and increase those units staffing, they will want the program and its money after all. For permissible environments, we could save billions of dollars spent flying fighters and run the A29 instead. The mission set and bomb load capability is almost idenical to the Reaper. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/25/2020 6:18:34 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
This or put them in fighter squadrons.... Socom is buying to have their own native asset to avoid the red tape of having to deal with big army/navy/af for support. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/25/2020 11:21:35 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Great idea but that's up to the AF/navy. Socom is buying to have their own native asset to avoid the red tape of having to deal with big army/navy/af for support. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/26/2020 12:36:13 AM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Great idea but that's up to the AF/navy. Socom is buying to have their own native asset to avoid the red tape of having to deal with big army/navy/af for support. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/26/2020 12:40:55 AM EDT
[#14]
Socom (not sure which branch of) used ov10s a few years back, quick acquisition program. This makes sense for them. I had a few buds I think that did some other stuff while remaining in their parent service and came back after. There aren't enough pilots laying around in socom, they will get then from somewhere
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/26/2020 12:46:17 AM EDT
[#15]
Only thing better would be to pull some A-1 skyraiders out of museums. I love the A-10 as much as the next guy, but the super taco just makes sense on so many levels.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/26/2020 1:05:45 AM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Doubt it would be AF since they didn't want'em and if they say "we have to fly them", would like them saying we fucked up- which ain't gonna happen. Which leaves Army CWO's to fly'em- which is a good thing. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
SO, who's gonna FLY THEM???? AF dudes, or Army CWO's????? And, anyone who say's "Enlisted Pilots", it won't happen.... The AF (Fighter) Pilot Mafia won't allow it..... Which leaves Army CWO's to fly'em- which is a good thing. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/26/2020 9:11:19 AM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Yes, but the aircrew, maintainers, weapons troops, etc have to come from somewhere... |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/26/2020 9:15:41 AM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Contractors Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Yes, but the aircrew, maintainers, weapons troops, etc have to come from somewhere... |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/26/2020 9:49:19 AM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Only thing better would be to pull some A-1 skyraiders out of museums. I love the A-10 as much as the next guy, but the super taco just makes sense on so many levels. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/26/2020 10:00:35 AM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted: No, the AF will say they must take over the program because guns on fixed wing, blah, blah, blah. Then, those rat bastards will crush the program and leave the ground fighters sucking hind tit. This is exactly what they did to the C-27 Spartan program, and screwed the Army Guard biggly. Army logistics and AF logistics are puzzling to watch, but another plane and it’s costs aren’t going to fix the problems. I don’t thing the T-6 will matter much in the long run either. We certainly don’t need the T-6 now in centcom. I hope SOCOM has a good mission for it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/26/2020 10:24:17 AM EDT
[#21]
I thought the OV-10 did a sterling job over SE Asia.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/26/2020 10:30:24 AM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Contractors or bring in the Colombian military to fly CAS through an exchange "school of the Americas" |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/26/2020 5:45:39 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Or you stand up another unit like 160th to fly and maintain. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/26/2020 6:30:18 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Contractors Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Yes, but the aircrew, maintainers, weapons troops, etc have to come from somewhere... Mike |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/26/2020 11:15:17 PM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Maintenance and support yes, but it would be a VERY hard sell having contractors flying armed birds. Mike |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/28/2020 2:29:38 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The c-27 is a cool plane, but it is a terrible replacement for a dash 8 or even a king air. It definitely isn’t a 130 and it doesn’t cost less than a 130 in the long run from seeing them in operation. Army logistics and AF logistics are puzzling to watch, but another plane and it’s costs aren’t going to fix the problems. I don’t thing the T-6 will matter much in the long run either. We certainly don’t need the T-6 now in centcom. I hope SOCOM has a good mission for it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/29/2020 2:31:41 AM EDT
[#27]
Fundamentally. I like planes that are on time, on budget, 90% solutions. -Kelly Johnson
The F-80, U-2, C-130, Y-12, SR-71, F-104, and F-117 were initially 90% solutions. Most are still flying. I’m not convinced that the later models are that much better for the dollar. On one hand I like the AT-6. it isn’t multi role. However how it would actually be employed... it looks more like a boondoggle in how it will actually be used. Could it be great? Yes. Would it in application? No. It doesn’t fit with our bases. It doesn’t fit with the threats. It doesn’t do the job. Could it have been good? Sure. In Afghanistan or Iraq back when it was busy and we had a huge array of big bases and FOBs. It’s came along too late. I bet SOCOM flies a few around and uses them as disposable airframes in austere locations. At least somebody can use the money Congress wasted on it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/29/2020 3:25:24 AM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted:How is it different than armed contractor shooting on the ground ? There's no way anyone is greenlighting a mercenary aviation squadron. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/1/2020 1:13:59 PM EDT
[#29]
There are quite a few socom aviation units that most of you don't know about. Seeing that socom has bought them, I'm sure they won't care what AF fighter jocks say and an appropriate unit will get them or be set up around them.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/1/2020 2:44:04 PM EDT
[#30]
Chuckling
They might as well start building Douglas skyraiders again The only plane that could carry more munitions than it weighed empty And could stay airborne 6? Hours on a tank of Fuel https://youtu.be/NXwp8A9zj88 |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/2/2020 8:16:49 AM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Armed security guard vs offensive ground attack pilot There's no way anyone is greenlighting a mercenary aviation squadron. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/2/2020 4:19:02 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Chuckling They might as well start building Douglas skyraiders again The only plane that could carry more munitions than it weighed empty And could stay airborne 6? Hours on a tank of Fuel https://youtu.be/NXwp8A9zj88 Just to put it into context; Jet fuel at most airports in the USA runs about $4-5 per gallon delivered into your airplane. In Afghanistan at one point it was over $60 a gallon by the time we actually got it into the jet or helicopter. Delivered from a KC-135, it can routinely cost more! The Turano can carry the nearly the same bomb load as a Reaper, at twice the speed, on tenth the fuel burn of an F16, and be equipped with the same mission avionics package less the satellite up-link. The AT-6 is a good airplane but its wing is too small to provide enough payload. Manned assets also are more flexible in theater and can provide a limited strafing/unguided rocket attack capability in addition to guided bombs and Hellfire Missiles. Never underestimate the value of a show of force or that quantity has a quality all it's own. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/2/2020 4:31:35 PM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Chuckling They might as well start building Douglas skyraiders again The only plane that could carry more munitions than it weighed empty And could stay airborne 6? Hours on a tank of Fuel https://youtu.be/NXwp8A9zj88 |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/2/2020 5:35:11 PM EDT
[#34]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/25/2020 4:52:59 AM EDT
[#35]
It’s worth noting that the U-28 can put a few butts in seats. That comes in handy when you put the right cool guys in for a quick movement with some organic overwatch after you arrive. They seem to be disregarding this with the future choices.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/25/2020 1:03:17 PM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted: take a skyraider and put a PT-6 on .. Turboprop Skyraider you say? 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/25/2020 3:39:35 PM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Turboprop Skyraider you say? https://www.AR15.Com/media/mediaFiles/22875/A2D_Skyshark-301102.jpg |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/25/2020 6:34:16 PM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted: That needs a like button Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Turboprop Skyraider you say? https://www.AR15.Com/media/mediaFiles/22875/A2D_Skyshark-301102.jpg That needs a like button That needs a "FUCKIN AWESOME" button! |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/19/2020 10:15:22 AM EDT
[#39]
Bring back the Skyhawk!!
In all seriousness I hope it works out well for them. The Tucano looks awesome. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/19/2020 10:57:26 AM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted: ..., put a light attack fixed wing aircraft in among all the fleets, maybe 6 birds per squadron. They could have flown probably 99% of the combat missions fighters flew over the last several decades (excluding any boat ops). And then maybe double or triple the hours for the pilots, probably make things safer with more proficient pilots. I'm a bit late, but I always thought the textron scorpion style of plane would be an excellent deal. Simple and cheap to buy/operate, twin turbofan, easily self-deployable, etc. basically an a29/t6 on steroids, or maybe consider it a mini a10 without the gun. Removing phrases like "air superiority" and "fighter" from an aircraft's purpose opens up a lot of possibilities.... |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/19/2020 11:09:50 AM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Bring back the Skyhawk!! In all seriousness I hope it works out well for them. The Tucano looks awesome. An up-engined BAe Hawk would do wonders in the light attack role  Or a whole bunch of F/A-50's 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/19/2020 11:14:57 AM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I'm a bit late, but I always thought the textron scorpion style of plane would be an excellent deal. Simple and cheap to buy/operate, twin turbofan, easily self-deployable, etc. basically an a29/t6 on steroids, or maybe consider it a mini a10 without the gun. Removing phrases like "air superiority" and "fighter" from an aircraft's purpose opens up a lot of possibilities.... You've just argued the justification for the Kestrel. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/19/2020 11:17:12 AM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted: An up-engined BAe Hawk would do wonders in the light attack role http://www.lowflying.net/uploads/1/6/3/8/16384742/439261_orig.jpg Or a whole bunch of F/A-50's https://www.gladiusds.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/maxresdefault-1.jpg Once again these cost way too much to operate a a per-hour basis. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/19/2020 12:51:36 PM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted: You've just argued the justification for the Kestrel. Had to look up kestrel.... looks like a new iteration of existing designs, what makes it special? A big problem with adapting aircraft for this is performance and airworthiness. The a29 and t6 are both 1600hp aircraft and have performance issues after you hang fuel tanks, designator, and munitions under them. Hanging anything under an airplane designed without hardpoints is also a substantial engineering effort. For military use somebody will have to accept the airworthiness risk and that is a substantial expenditure of money and time due to modern bureaucracy and red tape. If there were a clean sheeet design (like the textron thing or any other option) you could design in adequate internal fuel to avoid the drag of aux tanks, a designator mount to avoid most of the drag penalty of a tacked-on sensor, and many other things that would eliminate the compromises of adapting existing aircraft. That was my only point. I'm not intimately familiar with the ov10 situation, but I suspect avoiding such compromises was a factor in selecting that aircraft. They were already government owned and could be had for free, they have hardpoints, and the government already had substantial engineering data and usage history for them. A few million $ rebuild for each and you have a relatively quick/simple/effective solution with minimal testing/airworthiness overhead. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/19/2020 3:40:02 PM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Had to look up kestrel.... looks like a new iteration of existing designs, what makes it special? A big problem with adapting aircraft for this is performance and airworthiness. The a29 and t6 are both 1600hp aircraft and have performance issues after you hang fuel tanks, designator, and munitions under them. Hanging anything under an airplane designed without hardpoints is also a substantial engineering effort. For military use somebody will have to accept the airworthiness risk and that is a substantial expenditure of money and time due to modern bureaucracy and red tape. If there were a clean sheeet design (like the textron thing or any other option) you could design in adequate internal fuel to avoid the drag of aux tanks, a designator mount to avoid most of the drag penalty of a tacked-on sensor, and many other things that would eliminate the compromises of adapting existing aircraft. That was my only point. I'm not intimately familiar with the ov10 situation, but I suspect avoiding such compromises was a factor in selecting that aircraft. They were already government owned and could be had for free, they have hardpoints, and the government already had substantial engineering data and usage history for them. A few million $ rebuild for each and you have a relatively quick/simple/effective solution with minimal testing/airworthiness overhead. Just kind of a joke at the RAF studies that pushed the Kestrel/Harrier program forward, first as a technology demo and then as a working aircraft. Essentially, as you know, the point behind VSTOL tactical aircraft was base survival and response time...there was little if any thought given to A2A and that simply as a mechanism for self-defense. At that time, battlefield loiter wasn't a big value over sortie generation time. I would tend to agree that the OV10 was the best solution available. Combined with some of the capability within the OV10 for light transport, medevac, etc. to me it was always the clear winner in the LAAR constellation. The OV10 just needs more horsepower, and today's TPs get the extra HP needed for all sorts of things. Additionally, the OV10 needs better seats. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/19/2020 3:45:03 PM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Once again these cost way too much to operate a a per-hour basis. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: An up-engined BAe Hawk would do wonders in the light attack role http://www.lowflying.net/uploads/1/6/3/8/16384742/439261_orig.jpg Or a whole bunch of F/A-50's https://www.gladiusds.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/maxresdefault-1.jpg Once again these cost way too much to operate a a per-hour basis. Way less then F-35s, F-15s, F-16s and F/A-18s |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/19/2020 3:48:53 PM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Again we see the Air Force has not much interest in ground attack planes. Neither does the Army. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/19/2020 3:52:04 PM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Neither does the Army. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Again we see the Air Force has not much interest in ground attack planes. Neither does the Army. Well they're not really allowed to so... |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/19/2020 3:54:07 PM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Well they're not really allowed to so... The limiting factor is that Aviation Branch is run by retired Apache CW5s among who the depth of analysis is "Apache all the things!" The Army could have these things, but they aren't core to Army equities and ensuring no one else has them is core (or even existential) to USAF equities. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/19/2020 3:54:44 PM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Well they're not really allowed to so... Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Again we see the Air Force has not much interest in ground attack planes. Neither does the Army. Well they're not really allowed to so... Oh c'mon. They could buy lobbying politicians and contractors just like every other service. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
