Commentary: The US Air Force needs a light attack aircraft

[Whiskey]

Recently U.S. Rep Mike Coffman from Colorado wrote in the Air Force Times about the light attack aircraft program in the Air Force. https://www.airforcetimes.com/opinion/commentary/2018/09/09/commentary-the-us-air-force-needs-a-light-attack-aircraft/

 

I wrote back to him as this is something that seriously bugs the heck outta me.

 

"

Mr. Coffman,

 

I apologize ahead as I am not one of your constituents and do not live in Colorado (Austin, TX) however I felt that I needed to reply to your commentary piece in the Air Force Times regarding light attack aircraft. And as a veteran myself I felt an even larger urge to speak about this to someone in an official capacity.

 

For several years now I have followed the Air Force's and Defense Department's thought process and experiments with the light attack aircraft concept. And for several years I have felt like I want to pull my hair out in complete frustration over it. The Air Force has gone in a complete circle now, 40 years after Vietnam. All one has to do is look at what happened with aviation during that time and the parallels are unbelievable. 

 

Amazing, reliable, and cost effective aircraft such as the OV-10 Bronco, A-37 Dragonfly, OV-1 Birddog, and Douglas A-1 Skyraider are just a few examples of light attack aircraft that were developed and deployed into the combat theatre due to the massive need of such capabilities they provided. The Air Force even saw a need of subsonic jet aircraft to complement light attack and utilized their own version of the Navy's A-7 Corsair II with the A-7D. Requirements and mission needs eventually led to the development of the beloved A-10 Warthog, which as the Air Force tried 30 years ago before, is up to the chopping block again.

 

If the case for the old saying, "History repeats itself," isn't more obvious than in this case then I do not know what is. Millions of dollars in taxpayers money is being nothing but utterly and completely wasted because the Air Force wants to play around and pretend that they are interested in non-fighter type aircraft procurement. Why is Congress allowing this? Why is this not an issue that is being taken more seriously? These aircraft are desperately needed on the battlefield and yet nothing is being done about it. 

I thoroughly enjoyed reading your commentary and needed to add my own thoughts to it. You have been the first elected official that I've seen to say anything regarding this horrible travesty and foul up that the Air Force has been manifesting.

 

Thank you for your time and your service,

 

Zach Patton"

 

Any thoughts?

[11bee]

A day late and dollar short.  Pretty much the motto of the US military.   Seem to make a habit of being trained and equipped to fight the last war, not the next.  Could have used something like that since 2003 (assuming we could find the pilots and maintainers), to take the load off the legacy jet fleet that was pretty much worked to death by flying continuous missions against adversaries with zero air defense capability.   Seriously, does anyone see the irony of using cutting edge tactical jets and B-1's to drop weapons on light infantry whose most effective A2A weapon is probably an RPG?

 

Unfortunately, now we are refocused on our traditional bogeymen (the godless commies).  Equally unfortunately, aircraft like these light attack planes (and even our beloved A-10) have very limited use in any type of scenario against a near-peer adversary.  I suggest we simply sell these to our client states that need them.  Otherwise, terminate what is a completely useless program (by useless, I mean that it's useless until we find ourselves engaged in yet another meat-grinder of guerrilla war with a low tech adversary who will simply wait us out until we leave). 

 

BTW, you reference the A-1, OV-10 and A-37 aircraft.  You are aware that by the end of the Vietnam war those two propeller-driven aircraft were withdrawn from flying over contested airspace entirely and the A-37 had some pretty severe limitations placed on it as soon as the North introduced MANPADS in South Vietnam? 

 

[Whiskey]

1 hour ago, 11bee said:

 

BTW, you reference the A-1, OV-10 and A-37 aircraft.  You are aware that by the end of the Vietnam war those two propeller-driven aircraft were withdrawn from flying over contested airspace entirely and the A-37 had some pretty severe limitations placed on it as soon as the North introduced MANPADS in South Vietnam? 

 

 

I did. The point of bringing them up was to highlight the fact that they WERE developed because of the requirements. And that also didn't keep the OV-10 and A-37 from continuing to serve for what, another 20 years??

[11bee]

33 minutes ago, Whiskey said:

 

I did. The point of bringing them up was to highlight the fact that they WERE developed because of the requirements. And that also didn't keep the OV-10 and A-37 from continuing to serve for what, another 20 years??

Yep, those two aircraft went on to serve another couple of decades.  The A-37 never saw combat again and the OV-10 suffered heavy losses in Desert Storm until it too was limited to non-contested areas.   Not exactly a selling point for the light attack concept.   

 

Don't get me wrong..  if funding is unlimited and you find the personnel to fly and maintain a brand new airframe, the USAF should definitely go for it.  As I mentioned, it's only a matter of time before we get into another war where a plane like this might be useful. 

 

If not, and these costs cut into other programs (or those program's manpower), they should jettison the Light Attack Program asap. 

 

 

[Whiskey]

I probably could not have said that better. Wars come in all shapes and sizes however, and having our most expensive and state-of-the-art aircraft performing tasks at a 1/3 of the cost would allow those funds to actually be returned. The USAF is still trying to find a 'one-size fits all package,' and after decades of trial and error they still do not seem to understand that will never be that. In now way am I trying to armchair this, I look at it from an observational point of view. Yes, utilize the F-35, F-16, F-15 and F-22 to their fullest potentials in any high or low threat environment, but don't beat them into dust. Hell even the A-10's need a break that a light aircraft could perform for most of it's duties.

 

I mean c'mon, using an F-22 to destroy a Taliban drug facility in Afghanistan? Really?

[Collin]

Follow the money. Serria Nevada Corp has a huge footprint in Colorado.

 

Collin

[john53]

Drones?---John

[southwestforests]

Re: where in article it says, "but we owe it to our taxpayers to find less-costly solutions against less-capable threats where and when we can."
I don't think the author understands, it's not about the taxpayers, it never is; it is about contractors, it is about power and control of budget appropriations, it is about where I'm going to get a consultancy contract after I retire, it is about ego and influence.
Or at least that's what Dad told me when he worked at the Pentagon in the 1970s.

And since he was my Dad and looked studly in his uniform he has to have been right.

26 minutes ago, john53 said:

Drones?---John

Sounds reasonable to me, even though it too can have an element of the above.
 

[Don]

Now, I may be thinking of something else entirely or I may indeed just be dreaming but wasn't there an experiment recently that brought back two OV-10G Broncos? Ex-NASA machines I think? They were supposedly fully upgraded (glass cockpits)  and had all kinds of "techno-wizardry" stuff jammed into them. I think they were relabeled OV-10G+ and they were supposed to be sent to be tested against ISIS back in 2016 or 2017 to see if such an aircraft could be used to fight insurgent type groups.

 

Again...I am probably thinking of something else but I swear I read that somewhere.

 

Regards,

Don

 

EDIT: Quick search on Wiki...yeah I know but I was in a hurry...

 

OV-10G+

Designation given to OV-10s loaned from NASA to the United States Special Operations Command for evaluation under the Combat Dragon II as a counter-insurgency aircraft, featuring new Hartzell four-bladed props and an off-the-shelf sensor suite. 3 modified from OV-10D+.

 

Link:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_Rockwell_OV-10_Bronco

Edited September 10, 2018 by Don

[Collin]

23 minutes ago, Don said:

Now, I may be thinking of something else entirely or I may indeed just be dreaming but wasn't there an experiment recently that brought back two OV-10G Broncos? Ex-NASA machines I think? They were supposedly fully upgraded (glass cockpits)  and had all kinds of "techno-wizardry" stuff jammed into them. I think they were relabeled OV-10G+ and they were supposed to be sent to be tested against ISIS back in 2016 or 2017 to see if such an aircraft could be used to fight insurgent type groups.

 

Again...I am probably thinking of something else but I swear I read that somewhere.

 

Regards,

Don

 

EDIT: Quick search on Wiki...yeah I know but I was in a hurry...

 

OV-10G+

Designation given to OV-10s loaned from NASA to the United States Special Operations Command for evaluation under the Combat Dragon II as a counter-insurgency aircraft, featuring new Hartzell four-bladed props and an off-the-shelf sensor suite. 3 modified from OV-10D+.

 

Link:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_Rockwell_OV-10_Bronco

Dead program. Experiment over and aircraft I believe sold/given to the philippine air force. 

 

Unfortunatly this OV-10G was a just too late to gain traction. 

 

Collin

 

  

 

[nspreitler]

The OV-10G was around for a few years, we were supposed to train with them at a JRTC rotation in 2013 but they ended up not going supposedly due to some conflict with the Air Force.  

 

A light attack aircraft is a good concept, the Iraqi Air Force was using Cessna Caravans effectively when I was in Iraq in 2015, but we were also using MQ-9s very effectively as well. 

[Don]

You were correct on the 2013 date for the OV-10G+ aircraft based on the date of this article:

https://www.defensemedianetwork.com/stories/combat-dragon-ii-demonstrates-ov-10g-bronco-capabilities/

 

Seems they were around until just last year (December 2017) if the article below is correct:

http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/17162/document-offers-new-details-about-those-ov-10-broncos-that-went-to-fight-isis

 

Not bad for the Bronco actually!

 

From a purely modeling perspective I like the A29. Cool looking machine.

 

I also ran across this from June of this year:

http://www.builtforthemission.com/

 

Interesting reading.

 

Happy modeling all!

 

Regards,

Don

 

 

 

[Sabre Freak]

Air Force says 20

 

http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/23075/the-air-force-says-it-might-only-buy-20-light-attack-aircraft-in-the-end

[Collin]

Good old thedrive. Some inaccurate info in their stories but the just is there. Lot of platforms out there hacking this mission right now. OV-10 cost/benefit was just too late. OA-X: AFSOC getting the few that the USAF might buy and cross training their folks, at least that is the thought. 

[Ken Cartwright]

I'm certainly not going to arm-chair it, just putting out some thoughts on this.  Between new smart weapons dropped from fast-movers that seem to be effective at hitting small, even moving targets without causing much collateral damage, and drones, I'm wondering how efficient it would be to introduce an entirely new aircraft into the USAF.  Especially one that is probably more vulnerable to getting shot down than an F-15E flying at 40,000 feet miles from the target. 

 

I'm not sure we're there just yet, but I think weapons are coming online that would allow that F-15E to accurately hit a truck or small group, even if they're close to friendlies (a new SDB, I think?).  Heck a B-1 with a load of those weapons could probably do wonders.  Contrast that with a small turbo-prop aircraft low to the ground and taking fire from large caliber machine guns and what not, and it seems like it might be an unnecessary risk.

 

I love airplanes, and I think it'd be great to have all kinds of them out there, but from a risk and support-efficiency standpoint, I'm not sure those light attack types are worth the investment when factoring in other developments.  Or maybe I'm just wrong, I don't know.

[Mr Matt Foley]

GBU-53 I believe will do what you refer to Ken.

[ScaleWorx]

If the development of a new light attack aircraft is not going to happen, an off the shelf aircraft like the AHRLAC might be an option?

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AHRLAC_Holdings_Ahrlac

 

https://www.facebook.com/Ahrlac/