Guess who's back?

[Jinxter13]

Oh, kind of looks like a skinny armed s-3 in my mind. That might be a future project.

OH OH!!!....here we go agin'.....this one I gotta see :D

When in the 80's the Usaf has evalutated the PIPER ENFORCER they should have go forward with the project

Looks like a prop driven A-10....I'll show meself the door

Edited March 18, 2016 by #1 Greywolf

[Whiskey]

More news on the Bronco:

Verdict Pending on Vietnam-Era Aircraft Still In Use

[11bee]

More news on the Bronco:

Verdict Pending on Vietnam-Era Aircraft Still In Use

I have to wonder - even if this trial is a huge success, how many functional airframes are out there?

[nspreitler]

I have to wonder - even if this trial is a huge success, how many functional airframes are out there?

Not many, unless we bought them back from countries like Indonesia and Columbia. Boeing had the OV-10X program which would be new airframes.

[JolyTomcat1]

I haven't personally been involved with Syria, but I think Syria is far more complex. With militias we are working with, a government we are against, and ISIS I don' think there is anything to win in Syria. That doesn't mean it isn't important, because it is the same group that is in Iraq. We can't ignore Syria, because if we did that leaves ISIS in Iraq with a place to rearm and regroup (Cambodia during the Vietnam War). It is even more complicated with Russia being there. So I think we should be hitting ISIS in Syria to set the conditions in Iraq, but I don't expect a measurable win in Syria.

Your insight and opinions in the current conflict zones are refreshing.

Your opinion on the ROE are very clear as well, however I would like to give an example for those who are refraining from your opinion in this matter.

The ROE's are there for a reason and cause, make sure that civilians are safe and so won't turn against: Friendly troops and the ultimate goals of the entire campaign.

Last year a spectre gunship allegedly attacked an insurgents HQ in Afghanistan, in reality it attacked an Doctors with out borders hospital, the attack lasted for an hour and killing 19 paitients and docters, 37 people got wounded (http://edition.cnn.com/2015/10/03/asia/afghanistan-doctors-without-borders-hospital/).

This example clearly states the reason why ROE's should be in place and are important for the friendly troops, they are the first to experience civilians turning against them. Remind that we are safe in our homes. Our troops doing the messy and dirty work, should be a much protected as possible to create workable conditions for them, the ROE's help them not hinder them.

[Trigger]

Boeing had the OV-10X program which would be new airframes.

Boeing had Jack and Sh**, and Jack's left town. OV-10X was a paper project that was perfectly fine - as a concept. But getting it into production would have been a totally different matter. Not the least of which being, It would have needed all new new engines, as the original Bronco was always a bit underpowered. So even IF there are engines out there that one can use that are off-the-shelf, they still have to be integrated with the airframe. That means testing, that means new software has to be written for the engines since the engine controls is tied to the control laws of the basic aircraft. The aircraft would have to undergo basic airworthiness certification.

September 2008, then-Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Norton Schwartz was pushing toward an eventual, $2 billion purchase of up to 100 Light Attack Armed Reconnaissance (LAAR) aircraft. The LAAR was likely to have been a turboprop aircraft and was to have been a part of mainstream Air Force (ACC, not AFSOC) operations. The USAF's RFI requesting details of a possible Light Attack/Armed Reconnaissance went out on July 27, 2009.

ACC wanted a "kinetic," or rapid engagement, capability that, "will reduce the sensor-to-shooter timeline cycle." The LAAR aircraft would also function as a digital-era forward air controller, coordinating fire directly with supported ground units through voice, video and datalinks – and minimizing the danger of blue-on-blue or "friendly fire" incidents.

One reason for the program: operating cost. The ACC wanted an aircraft that can fly one combat hour for $1,000. Even the "cheap" A-10 costs several thousands of dollars per hour to operate, and as the program ages, those costs would only increase while racking up airframe hours. Typical air-to-ground ordnance was to include one or two podded 7.62-mm. mini-guns, two 500-pound guided-munitions, 2.75-inch rocket projectiles and the AGM-114N Hellfire air-to-ground missile (although Brimstone would have been a better option and it's actually now being adopted by the USAF and there are plans to integrate it onto the Super Hornet as well as Eurofighter and F-35). An informal "needs" document called for operating from austere airfields on five-hour missions over distances of 900 nautical miles up to a ceiling of 30,000 feet.

In its short-term plans for the new aircraft, the Air Force planned to purchase 15 examples in fiscal year 2011. ACC wanted a 24-aircraft squadron ready for combat within two years before deciding on whether to equip an entire wing. Had the program grown as expected, many of the aircraft would be assigned to Air National Guard units.

The DoD made it clear that this must be derived from an "in production" aircraft design. Thus Embraer submitted the A-29B, Hawker Beechcraft/Beechcraft Corporation (HBHC) demoed the AT-6B, AirTractor pitched the AT802U (A modified crop duster, demonstrated at the 2009 Paris Air Show. They pitched that not having an ejection seat would save money), Alenia pitched the M346, and Pilatus the PC-6 Porter. Boeing pitched the new build OV-10X concept as well, but they didn't even have a production facility assigned to new-build OV-10s, whereas the others were already in production (minimizing start up costs). That, and the other contenders had aircraft already flying that were close to a final production variant is what cost Boeing.

Closely related to the AF program, the Navy in November 2009 launched Imminent Fury, a demonstrator program with a leased Super Tucano, designated A-29B. The Navy wanted it for special operations support for SEAL teams in the field. The Imminent Fury aircraft was equipped with an electro-optical sensor in a nose turret and satellite and secure communications systems. The Navy leased the Super Tucano from EP Aviation, a subsidiary of the contractor Xe Security, formerly Blackwater International.

So the USAF had a low-cost (both to acquire and operate) replacement planned for the aging A-10 in the COIN/CSAR Escort/CAS mission (that wasn't the F-35A) outlined back in 2008, an RFI went out in mid 2009 with planned deliveries to begin within two years and potential deliveries to include ANG units as well. The US Navy had need for a very similar role. The A-29B was evaluated for both, had scored high marks, and was already in production. So what happened?

HBHC flew AT-6B Texan II demonstration on their own time and dime as part of their sales pitch which they knew they were going to lose, but they thought they had an ace up their sleeve.

In December 2009 Sen. Sam Brownback (R-Kan) and Rep. Todd Tiahrt (R-Kan) sent a letter to then-Secretary of Defense Robert Gates stating concerns with reports that the United States and Brazil were negotiating for acquisition of Super Tucanos. Brownback and Tiahrt, strong defenders of the Wichita-built AT-6B, argued that such an agreement would "demean the integrity of the federal acquisition process" and cost thousands of American jobs. Isn't it ironic?

In 2011 the House Armed Services Committee moved to block funding for the program until the requirements and acquisition were validated. In November 2011 it was revealed that the Beechcraft AT-6B had been excluded from the competition by the USAF, leaving the A-29B the probable winner, with a contract expected to be awarded in December 2011. In December 2011, the contract was formally awarded to the A-29B, but HBHC sued.

In a review from the U.S. Government Accountability Office, "The Air Force concluded that HBDC had not adequately corrected deficiencies in its proposal. In this regard, the agency (GAO) concluded that multiple deficiencies and significant weaknesses found in HBHC's proposal make it technically unacceptable and results in unacceptable mission capability risk". Hawker Beechcraft's protest against its exclusion was dismissed.

But it was too late, lawyers and Congressmen were involved now and wheels were in motion. All motions were due to U.S. Court of Federal Claim by March 6, 2012. A re-awarding of the contract was expected in January 2013, but was delayed a few months.

The A-29B was re-awarded the contract on February 27, 2013 and Beechcraft yet again challenged the contract. But the USAF ordered that the construction start anyway. Beechcraft's allies in the Kansas Republican congressional delegation then called for the work to be stopped, while Embraer's Floridan congressional allies praised the USAF's move. The USAF instructed for work to continue unless a federal court orders otherwise. The United States Court of Federal Claims upheld the USAF's decision to proceed with the contract work.

So both the US GAO - the agency which provides to the United States Congress audit, evaluation, and investigative services - and Federal courts - backed the USAF's decision to proceed with the A-29B.

But by this time, the damage had been done. On 22 June 2011, President Obama addressed the nation from the White House and announced that 10,000 troops would be withdrawn from Afghanistan by the end of 2011 and an additional 23,000 troops will leave the country by the summer of 2012. He said the drawdown would continue "at a steady pace" until the United States handed over security to the Afghan authorities in 2014. Throw in the 2013 budget sequestration and the President's Pacific Tilt strategy (not to mention the CJCS saying that after 14 years, we're getting out of the COIN business, because that's a whole other mess in and of itself) and the ACC/ANG A-29Bs were doomed. A-29Bs were chosen to compliment their Mi-35s in the Afghan AF, and that's why there are a handful of those at Moody AFB, to train Afghan AF pilots.

The A-29B was exactly the kind of low-cost, fast-to-field, off the shelf COIN solution that many have wanted. But it wasn't technical problems or cost overruns or project mismanagement that killed it. It was the greed of a losing defense contractor and the Congressmen in their state who were more concerned about securing re-election votes and campaign contributions. So much for Congress caring about the guys on the ground - they do, as long as it's profitable for their districts and votes.

[nspreitler]

I'm sure that's correct as an Air Force project, but the OV-10 today isn't an Air Force project.

[11bee]

I'm sure that's correct as an Air Force project, but the OV-10 today isn't an Air Force project.

Which branch owns this program? Can SOCOM have it's own air force? The assets would still have to be assigned to one of the military branches though, correct?

Not seeing what the OV-10, upgraded or not, brings to the table vrs the A-29. Maybe a bit more range / loiter time but aside from that, what advantage would it offer?

[Exhausted]

What are the chances that certain programs are managed by third parties or will be in the future? How will the A-29 defeat all the defenses the OV-10 can't? Or did we finally decide to move past the "too slow to operate safely" phase of, ahem, reasoning?

Not many, unless we bought them back from countries like Indonesia and Columbia. Boeing had the OV-10X program which would be new airframes.

What about the airframes at the bone yard? What use is paying for the bone yard if we aren't able to bring fleets of aircraft back from it?

Edited March 19, 2016 by Exhausted

[fulcrum1]

Which branch owns this program? Can SOCOM have it's own air force? The assets would still have to be assigned to one of the military branches though, correct?

Not seeing what the OV-10, upgraded or not, brings to the table vrs the A-29. Maybe a bit more range / loiter time but aside from that, what advantage would it offer?

lol, got this one wrong!

Edited March 21, 2016 by fulcrum1

[nspreitler]

What are the chances that certain programs are managed by third parties or will be in the future? How will the A-29 defeat all the defenses the OV-10 can't? Or did we finally decide to move past the "too slow to operate safely" phase of, ahem, reasoning?

What about the airframes at the bone yard? What use is paying for the bone yard if we aren't able to bring fleets of aircraft back from it?

That was my first thought too, but I looked and there are none listed in the AMARC database.

[nspreitler]

Which branch owns this program? Can SOCOM have it's own air force? The assets would still have to be assigned to one of the military branches though, correct?

Not seeing what the OV-10, upgraded or not, brings to the table vrs the A-29. Maybe a bit more range / loiter time but aside from that, what advantage would it offer?

SOCOM got the C-27J after the Air Force was sending them straight from the factory to the boneyard.

[Exhausted]

That was my first thought too, but I looked and there are none listed in the AMARC database.

Got it man.

[fulcrum1]

SOCOM got the C-27J after the Air Force was sending them straight from the factory to the boneyard.

Edited March 19, 2016 by fulcrum1

[Trigger]

What use is paying for the bone yard if we aren't able to bring fleets of aircraft back from it?

For every $1 the federal government spends operating the facility, it saves or produces $11 from harvesting spare parts and selling off inventory.

Not seeing what the OV-10, upgraded or not, brings to the table vrs the A-29. Maybe a bit more range / loiter time but aside from that, what advantage would it offer?

It's easier to get a hold of a couple of old NASA OV-10s than it is a couple of Brazilian Super Tucanos. The USAF is looking for an aircraft able to perform counterterrorism operations rather than one that's able to destroy tanks and armored vehicles and both the A-29 and AT-6 can fill this role (although the A-29 is better suited for it). Textron's peddling the Scorpion for T-X, but it's a POS with a snowball's chance in hell of winning T-X, much less the COIN role. There's nothing wrong with a modern, new build OV-10X, but development and startup costs will kick up the price tag and the Tucano's already in production and in service with nine or ten air forces.

[11bee]

What are the chances that certain programs are managed by third parties or will be in the future? How will the A-29 defeat all the defenses the OV-10 can't? Or did we finally decide to move past the "too slow to operate safely" phase of, ahem, reasoning?

What about the airframes at the bone yard? What use is paying for the bone yard if we aren't able to bring fleets of aircraft back from it?

1) The A-29 has the same vulnerability as the OV-10 would. It's operational ceiling puts it within range of many MANPADS, which as a result, limits it's use to "relatively" safe areas or to night operations where the MANPADS threat is minimized (but given that night vision gear is now somewhat common with the bad guys, the threat is still present).

2) You are kidding about your boneyard comment, right? By your standards, the purpose of AMARC is to keep every retired military airframe intact and ready to go back into service? Just on the off chance we need some OV-10's or B-58's for our latest oversees adventure? AMARC is tasked with keeping certain selected airframes in near-operational condition. For the other 90%, they are responsible for salvaging useful components (which are then sent back to our military or to our allies) and then selling the airframes for salvage value. Pretty sure the operation pays for itself.

[Whiskey]

Your insight and opinions in the current conflict zones are refreshing.

Your opinion on the ROE are very clear as well, however I would like to give an example for those who are refraining from your opinion in this matter.

The ROE's are there for a reason and cause, make sure that civilians are safe and so won't turn against: Friendly troops and the ultimate goals of the entire campaign.

Last year a spectre gunship allegedly attacked an insurgents HQ in Afghanistan, in reality it attacked an Doctors with out borders hospital, the attack lasted for an hour and killing 19 paitients and docters, 37 people got wounded (http://edition.cnn.com/2015/10/03/asia/afghanistan-doctors-without-borders-hospital/).

This example clearly states the reason why ROE's should be in place and are important for the friendly troops, they are the first to experience civilians turning against them. Remind that we are safe in our homes. Our troops doing the messy and dirty work, should be a much protected as possible to create workable conditions for them, the ROE's help them not hinder them.

Have you been down range? Hit the sand box a few times? If not then please do not comment about any ROE that the troops on the front line are dealt with.

On another note please keep this on topic as well. I am learning quite a bit and stuff like this distracts from the subject matter.

[11bee]

Have you been down range? Hit the sand box a few times? If not then please do not comment about any ROE that the troops on the front line are dealt with.

On another note please keep this on topic as well. I am learning quite a bit and stuff like this distracts from the subject matter.

Relax Francis. It's an open forum. Nothing that's been posted violates ARC policy.

[Whiskey]

Relax Francis. It's an open forum. Nothing that's been posted violates ARC policy.

Never said it did Cupcake. I was just asking to keep it on the subject that I posted this topic about. Is that wrong of me to do so?

[11bee]

I've found all of the discussions in this thread informative. Don't like something? Bring it up with the moderators.

[Exhausted]

2) You are kidding about your boneyard comment, right? By your standards, the purpose of AMARC is to keep every retired military airframe intact and ready to go back into service? Just on the off chance we need some OV-10's or B-58's for our latest oversees adventure? AMARC is tasked with keeping certain selected airframes in near-operational condition. For the other 90%, they are responsible for salvaging useful components (which are then sent back to our military or to our allies) and then selling the airframes for salvage value. Pretty sure the operation pays for itself.

Not kidding, but I'm not suggesting put EVERYTHING we've ever used, that's still in existence, in permanent storage either. The reason I mentioned the boneyard is because I thought I saw some Broncos there when I visited in 2010. The Bronco is an excellent choice for many of the missions we've had since 2001 and many people rightly recognized the utility of this aircraft in permissible environments. I wouldn't advocate activating B-58s for use in CAS, though we basically do something like it ;) . When I was out there I was a little perplexed about WHY we still have AV-8Cs in storage out there -- I doubt we even have engines for them!

[Whiskey]

My apologies to everyone. My intention was not to offend anyone nor contradict my own words which I did.

Edited March 20, 2016 by Whiskey

[Trigger]

There are four categories of storage at AMARC:

Long Term

– These planes are also maintained in flyable condition. They have either been retired, and are awaiting conversion to FSATs (drone), FMS sales, or the gov't simply doesn't have a current mission for, but plan to use in some manner down the road. (ie - the embargoed Pakistani F-16A/Bs that were later pressed into service with NSAWC, at least one B-52 was put back into service recently)

Parts Reclamation

– These planes are no longer in flyable condition, but are used as Cann birds for similar planes of type which are still flying. A good example of this would be an aircraft retired by the U.S., but used by an allied air arm (i.e., the A-4). They can order parts from AMARC off of one of the parts reclamation aircraft. There are A-10s and F-15s out there now in this category as well.

Flyable Storage

- This includes aircraft which are currently in service, but the gov't doesn't have current space for. This can be for reasons such as: temporarily storing aircraft as combat spares, storing aircraft during a unit changeover, etc. These planes may only be on the ramp for a month or so, until they go to their new home.

Excess of DoD needs

– Aircraft in this category are no longer needed by the U.S. government, and may be sold whole, or in parts. This includes aircraft used for scrap metal. ie - F-14s

Many FMS sales these days (but for a few) are coming out of the storage area at AMARC.

[nspreitler]

It is impressive what can come out of the boneyard, like the B-57 that was there for 41 years before being returned to service.

[Exhausted]

Wow you really are a prick, even on the internet.

Not taking sides but...from one ordinary poster to another, please moderate yourself. I don't know if you know 11Bee from real life, but you really shouldn't act that way on this forum. We are trying to elevate discussion from the pits and this really doesn't help.