# Secret Program Works to Field SEAL Plane



## Nasty (Jul 21, 2009)

July 21, 2009
Military.com|by Christian Lowe 


In a move that harkens back to the days of recycled World War II torpedo bombers sheep-dipped as close air support planes, the Navy intends to field a limited number of turbo-prop attack planes outfitted with the most modern surveillance, tracking and weapons systems to help special ops forces keep track of bad guys and, in a pinch, put warheads on foreheads.

Call it an AH-1 Skyraider on steroids – a “Back to the Future”-resurrection of a kind of plane last seen pounding enemy positions with rockets, guns and bombs over Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos in the 1960s.

Code named “Imminent Fury,” the classified, year-long program has so far produced one fully-outfitted plane and is set to field four more to directly support SEALs and other operators on the battlefield in Afghanistan.

According to a source close to the program who declined to be named, the Navy has leased an EMB-314 Super Tucano for the job. Made by the Brazilian aerospace company Embraer, it is now being tested  on desert ranges in California and the service’s top test facility at Patuxent River Naval Air Station, Md. The Navy loaded it up with sensors and weapons systems that “would make an F-16 pilot blush,” the source said.

With top end electro-optical and infrared sensors, laser and GPS-guided bombs, rockets, twin .50 cal. machine guns, encrypted radios – and even the capability to tie in UAV surveillance feeds – the Super Tucano outfitted for the SEALs is a ground-pounder’s angel from above.

Military.com contacted the Navy for comment on this story, but despite a detailed public briefing on the program in March by a high-ranking program official, the service declined to elaborate on the program other than to say in a written statement: “Imminent Fury is a classified Navy initiative to address urgent warfighter needs. Initial developmental testing has been promising and the Navy is currently conducting discussions with our Joint partners on various courses of action as this initiative moves forward.”

News of the Imminent Fury program comes as commanders in Afghanistan wrestle with the persistent problem of civilian casualties resulting from errant or mistaken bomb strikes – typically from aircraft high above the battlefield.

A recent investigation report on a high-profile friendly-fire incident in Farah province showed that high-altitude B-1 bombers had little ability to discriminate enemy from civilians during several bombings in support of Marine spec ops forces under Taliban assault. 

Many argue that low-altitude aircraft that can fly for long periods over combat zones loaded with various weapons are needed to avoid such incidents. For advocates of the Imminent Fury program, the Super Tucano – with its five-hour endurance – fits the bill for a so-called “counter insurgency aircraft.”

“The SEALs said ‘we want a persistent capability at low cost, small footprint and turbo-prop aircraft to do armed intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance missions,’ ” the source close to the program said. “Everyone who gets briefed on this program has been blown away.”

Over the past year, both Navy and Air Force pilots have flown the leased Super Tucano in tests. According to the source, the single-engine, two-pilot plane has successfully dropped both laser and GPS guided bombs, as well as a wide range of guided and unguided rockets. 

According to statistics from an Embraer brochure, the EMB-314 has a maximum speed of nearly 370 mph and a maximum ceiling of 35,000 feet. The plane can take off and land in just under 3,000 feet and can carry a maximum load of nearly 3,500 pounds.

The initial cadre of four SEAL-supporting Super Tucanos will be flown by Navy pilots activated as individual augmentees, and multiple sources close to the program report that aviators are clamoring to get involved with the program.

But it is still unclear whether Imminent Fury will get off the ground since funding for the program is in doubt. Sources say there is no money earmarked for the program in the 2010 budget but that the service “is hoping for some reprogramming authority” to move funds from other accounts to buy the four planes requested by the SEALs.


----------



## Nasty (Jul 21, 2009)

View attachment 8183


----------



## SAWMAN (Jul 21, 2009)

Hmm. Sounds interesting. My first thought was why turbo prop, specifically? I'm guessing it allows greater loiter time, or slower air speeds. Anybody particularly dialed in on that info?
I'd like to learn more, to see why it's enough better than the Warthog to justify the cost. Apparently, it is, but I'd like to learn more. 
I've always had a particular appreciation for those who fly low to support those on the ground. 
Back to the prop planes again, huh? I guess you never can tell. Whatever works...or puts "warheads on foreheads" as the article put it.


----------



## Blue (Jul 21, 2009)

I hope they end up getting these planes, low flying prop planes are better built for the missions (Ground support) that our aviators are flying now, not to mention they're cheaper to run then Jets.


----------



## Vat_69 (Jul 21, 2009)

Turbo props give you greater loiter time and fuel efficiency, hence the USN/USAF JUPT aircraft going from a jet trainer- T-37, to a turbo prop- T-6 A TII.  Turbo props are quieter and burn less fuel without sacraficing performance.  With the advanced turbo props these days you have the ability to get direct power inputs with very little delay whereas some jet aircraft required spool up time for throttle inputs.  makes a huge difference in performance especially when flying low and slow.  Still not sure why the USN particularly, decided to go with the Super Tucano when the T-6 Texan II is a known and funded quantity with virtually identical performance capabilities.  Oh and it's made in AMERICA....  still  both aircraft are relatively cheap and easy to maintain.


----------



## car (Jul 21, 2009)

I thought of the Skyraider before I even got to the second paragraph!


----------



## SAWMAN (Jul 21, 2009)

Vat_69 said:


> Turbo props give you greater loiter time and fuel efficiency, hence the USN/USAF JUPT aircraft going from a jet trainer- T-37, to a turbo prop- T-6 A TII.  Turbo props are quieter and burn less fuel without sacraficing performance.  With the advanced turbo props these days you have the ability to get direct power inputs with very little delay whereas some jet aircraft required spool up time for throttle inputs.  makes a huge difference in performance especially when flying low and slow.  Still not sure why the USN particularly, decided to go with the Super Tucano when the T-6 Texan II is a known and funded quantity with virtually identical performance capabilities.  Oh and it's made in AMERICA....  still  both aircraft are relatively cheap and easy to maintain.



Aha. Thanks for the good scoop!


----------



## Trip_Wire (Jul 21, 2009)

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Matf6OjuO6E[/ame]


[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RtRylXsNL_o&feature=related[/ame]


----------



## talonlm (Jul 21, 2009)

I understand there is a USAF program looking into the same thing using the T-6, so it makes good governmental sense that the Navy is doing the same thing but looking at a different aircraft for the job.  I'll see what I can find on it when I get home.  Damned servers block almost everything here.

On a side note, I wonder if there is an intention to carrier-qualify the Tucano?


----------



## SAWMAN (Jul 21, 2009)

Interesting footage. Good post.


----------



## DA SWO (Jul 21, 2009)

Vat_69 said:


> Turbo props give you greater loiter time and fuel efficiency, hence the USN/USAF JUPT aircraft going from a jet trainer- T-37, to a turbo prop- T-6 A TII.  Turbo props are quieter and burn less fuel without sacraficing performance.  With the advanced turbo props these days you have the ability to get direct power inputs with very little delay whereas some jet aircraft required spool up time for throttle inputs.  makes a huge difference in performance especially when flying low and slow.  Still not sure why the USN particularly, decided to go with the Super Tucano when the T-6 Texan II is a known and funded quantity with virtually identical performance capabilities.  Oh and it's made in AMERICA....  still  both aircraft are relatively cheap and easy to maintain.



The youtube link shows what the super-t can do.
I don't believe the T-6 has been tested/cleared for weapons release, so a super-t could get to the warfighter quicker.
I am curious why the Navy brass gave a briefing for a program that is highly classified (according to the story).  Why not keep your mouths shut?


----------



## x SF med (Jul 21, 2009)

*Secret Program Works to Field SEAL Plane* 


Secret?  yeah, right, uh-huh...  :doh:


----------



## Vat_69 (Jul 21, 2009)

SOWT said:


> The youtube link shows what the super-t can do.
> I don't believe the T-6 has been tested/cleared for weapons release, so a super-t could get to the warfighter quicker.
> I am curious why the Navy brass gave a briefing for a program that is highly classified (according to the story).  Why not keep your mouths shut?



You mean like this?


----------



## DA SWO (Jul 21, 2009)

Vat_69 said:


> You mean like this?



Is that a DoD photo, or a manufacters photo? 
Is there a small diameter bomb aboard?
Does that plane have the operational optics aboard?
US Comm suite aboard?

It's easy to post a pic of your plane loaded to the gills with bombs/ammo, somthing else to actually use it.

BTW- My experience with the Colombian Air Force is they operated with a much smaller load then your photo shows. I suspect actual ops in Afghanistan would be similar (temps/elevations) to the COLAF.

Bottom line-They gave a brief, and now won't comment because it's "Highly Classified"; they should have kept their yaps shut.


----------



## Nasty (Jul 21, 2009)

x SF med said:


> *Secret Program Works to Field SEAL Plane*
> 
> 
> Secret?  yeah, right, uh-huh...  :doh:



Not so much.


----------



## AWP (Jul 21, 2009)

Man, before the Net you had to use dead drops and the like to pass secrets, now all you need is an email account and vBulletin.


----------



## arizonaguide (Jul 21, 2009)

I wonder if the Super-T is better armored/reinforced for close support work.
Either way...I WANT ONE! :cool:


----------



## HoosierAnnie (Jul 21, 2009)

SAWMAN said:


> I'd like to learn more, to see why it's enough better than the Warthog to justify the cost.



I can't imagine this bird goes better armed that da Hog


----------



## AWP (Jul 21, 2009)

You can build a Tucano, you can't build a new Hog, and the Tucano is a fraction of the cost of a Hog. So while a new A-10C may be more capable, you can get new Tucanos into the fight a lot sooner and for far less money than you can a new A-10C (which they don't even make anymore and the AF is actually retiring A-10's with many hours on the airframes).


----------



## arizonaguide (Jul 21, 2009)

*Gotta love that HUGE bubble canopy!!!*

*




*
*Super Tucano*
Pratt and Whitney Canada PT6A-68A turboprop, 969 kW
Pratt and Whitney Canada PT6A-68/3 turboprop, 1,600shp
NOTE: The PT6 family are particularly well known for their extremely high reliability, with MTBO's on the order of 9000 hours in some models.
In US military use, they are designated as *T74* or *T101*.
Propeller Hartzell five blade, constant speed, reversible pitch propeller.

*Performance:*
Range over 1,500km
Endurance 6hrs 30mins
Cruising Speed 530km/h
Maximum Speed 560km/h (320 knots, 368 mph).
Manoeuvrability +7G and –3.5G
Maximum Take-off Weight, Clean 
3,160kg
Maximum Take-off Weight Utility
4,918kg
Rate of Climb 
4,750ft/min

*Weapons:*
Hardpoints 5
Maximum External Load 
1,500kg
Guns
Two wing-mounted 12.7mm machine guns
Other Weapons
General-purpose bombs and guided air-to-air and air-to-ground missiles
FLIR AN/AAQ-22 SAFIRE



> *Skyraider Lite For SOCOM*
> 
> March 16, 2009: The U.S. Navy (the Irregular Warfare Office) at the behest of SOCOM, has spent the last testing the feasibility of using the Brazilian Super Tucano warplane to support U.S. special warfare operations. The Super Tucano is a five ton, single engine, single seat aircraft. It is basically a prop driven trainer that can be equipped for combat missions. The aircraft can carry up to 1.5 tons of weapons, including 12.7mm machine-guns, bombs and missiles. The aircraft cruises at about 500 kilometers an hour and can stay in the air for about 6.5 hours per sortie.
> 
> ...


----------



## formerBrat (Jul 21, 2009)

IIRC, the A-10 has a ridiculous loiter time already, one of the many reasons it performs well at CAS, no? Probably not the same loiter time as a turbroprop, no. Wouldn't the OV-10 that was in another thread about possibly being resurected be able to perform something similar as well. It would also seem that the A-10 has the added benefit of triple redundancy of quite a few systems on the aircraft as well as a very large wingspan, two tails and has proven itself able to take a lot of damage and bring it's pilot home.

Would all of the above fit on a small aircraft such as that?


----------



## arizonaguide (Jul 21, 2009)

The A-10 does not have the loiter time over the combat area.
The OV-10 doesn't have the ability to carry nearly the firepower, or have the speed/power.

But you are surely correct that the A-10 has much more armor and redundancy.


----------



## AWP (Jul 21, 2009)

formerBrat said:


> IIRC, the A-10 has a ridiculous loiter time already, one of the many reasons it performs well at CAS, no? Probably not the same loiter time as a turbroprop, no. Wouldn't the OV-10 that was in another thread about possibly being resurected be able to perform something similar as well. It would also seem that the A-10 has the added benefit of triple redundancy of quite a few systems on the aircraft as well as a very large wingspan, two tails and has proven itself able to take a lot of damage and bring it's pilot home.
> 
> Would all of the above fit on a small aircraft such as that?



With the OV-10 you still get back to old airframes that aren't currently under production requiring updated avionics and comm suites to operate on the battlefield. My semi-educated guess is that it wouldn't be cost-effective to do so, hence the "lesser" solution of the Tucano or even the Texan II being "better" options than starting up the A-10 or O-10 production lines again.


----------



## arizonaguide (Jul 21, 2009)

Freefalling said:


> With the OV-10 you still get back to old airframes that aren't currently under production requiring updated avionics and comm suites to operate on the battlefield. My semi-educated guess is that it wouldn't be cost-effective to do so, hence the "lesser" solution of the Tucano or even the Texan II being "better" options than starting up the A-10 or O-10 production lines again.


True fact.
The OV-10 is not even in the same class. Not sure exactly what the aerobatic capabilities of the OV-10 are, but nothing in the same class (if AT ALL.) Cannot handle the same G-loads in Close support, and, as Free points out is out of production.

The A-10 is an awsome bird, no doubt. But, as we all know it's Bang-for-the-buck, and the Super-T or Texan are a great compromise!
:2c:

Write me up an order for a Super-T, please. :cool: I'll make an exception to my Buy American rule, this ONE time! ;)


----------



## arizonaguide (Jul 21, 2009)

Seriously...wrap it up..I'll take it! :cool:









I'll need the 2 seat version though, as I'll need room for the wife.
(golf clubs can be carried in a wing pod). ;)


----------



## talonlm (Jul 21, 2009)

The aim is probably not so much to replace the A-10 as it is the Strike Eagle and Bone.  The F-15E and B-1Bs both are awesome machines, but neither were designed for COIN.  Either the T-6 or the Super Tucano is going to have a much smaller footprint (and, arguably, the Super T will have a 'quieter' one, in that there are a number of nations operating them), have comparatively excellent maneuverability, can operate from much smaller airfields, will have the loiter time and the survivability needed for the mission.  

Still, it would be nice to hear a radial engine in the pattern again.


----------



## arizonaguide (Jul 21, 2009)

talonlm said:


> Still, it would be nice to hear a radial engine in the pattern again.


A-fucking-men!





However, it is probably hard to beat the parts availability/existing supply chain (and the dependability MTBF) of the Pratt and Whitney's. Many existing US airframes share the same basic engine (like the C-12, I believe), so the existing supply chain/parts avail is probably pretty good.
Not to mention horsepower!
:)


----------



## BLACKMags (Jul 21, 2009)

guess it's not a secret anymore !  WAY TO GO lol


----------



## arizonaguide (Jul 21, 2009)

BLACKMags said:


> guess it's not a secret anymore ! WAY TO GO lol


Yup, it does make you wonder. :uhh:
The news article I quoted was published March 16, 2009...for public consumption.
Then again the Super-T capabilities are common knowlege.

Or, perhaps this whole public release was ALL just "disinformation"...

Bottom line: I want a freakin Super-T!!!


----------



## AWP (Jul 21, 2009)

Real story or not, it gives the bad guys something else to think about and if the capability evolves into the real world, so much the better.


----------



## Nasty (Jul 21, 2009)

BLACKMags said:


> guess it's not a secret anymore !  WAY TO GO lol



We just can't tell the Ts.


----------



## Headshot (Jul 21, 2009)

WTF?  They can't afford four of the fuckers!  Are you fucking serious!?  How about not flying AF1 around Manhattan for a day for the fuck of it  and buy some planes for our SEAL/s you stupid fucks.


----------



## BLACKMags (Jul 21, 2009)

Headshot said:


> WTF?  They can't afford four of the fuckers!  Are you fucking serious!?  How about not flying AF1 around Manhattan for a day for the fuck of it  and buy some planes for our SEAL/s you stupid fucks.



I think they are spending all the money on the new health care reform.


----------



## Vat_69 (Jul 22, 2009)

SOWT said:


> Is that a DoD photo, or a manufacters photo?
> Is there a small diameter bomb aboard?
> Does that plane have the operational optics aboard?
> US Comm suite aboard?
> ...



http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/at-6b-light-attack/
http://www.deagel.com/news/FMS-Iraq-Requests-Sale-of-36-AT-6B-Texan-II-Aircraft_n000005446.aspx
http://www.hawkerbeechcraft.com/military/at-6_ab/



also tested by the USAF.


----------



## Vat_69 (Jul 22, 2009)

also view pilatus's pc-9m attack version.


----------



## arizonaguide (Jul 22, 2009)

I understand, the Super-T is the only platform of those (turboprops) mentioned that was actually designed from the ground up to be a weapon platform, rather than just a trainer. The Texan II (and the Pilatus) do share the same PW engine (PT6A family) though.
:cool:


----------



## talonlm (Jul 22, 2009)

arizonaguide said:


> I understand, the Super-T is the only platform of those (turboprops) mentioned that was actually designed from the ground up to be a weapon platform, rather than just a trainer. The Texan II (and the Pilatus) do share the same PW engine (PT6A family) though.
> :cool:



There's a lot to be said for an easy logistics trail.  I can't imagine it would be terribly difficult to weaponize the T-6, either.  Whether or not SOCOM decides to follow that route remains to be seen, but I can definately see the Air Force going with the T-6.  A lot of advantages for the AF there--not the least of which is the T-6 logistical tail and pilots already very proficient in it's use.


----------



## DA SWO (Aug 4, 2009)

talonlm said:


> I understand there is a USAF program looking into the same thing using the T-6, so it makes good governmental sense that the Navy is doing the same thing but looking at a different aircraft for the job.  I'll see what I can find on it when I get home.  Damned servers block almost everything here.
> 
> On a side note, I wonder if there is an intention to carrier-qualify the Tucano?


AFSOC is starting to look like the Viet Nam era again...

Here is an e-mail from the AF Association:

Seeking 100 Quick-Turn IW Aircraft: The Air Force wants to find a fixed-wing light attack/armed reconnaissance (LAAR) aircraft that it can field beginning in Fiscal 2012. Aeronautical Systems Center at Wright-Patterson AFB, Ohio, issued a capability request for information last week to "explore cost effective options" to fill a need for 100 such aircraft. This aircraft must be able to operate from dirt fields at forward operating locations where the pilots will find jet fuel and not much else. According to the announcement, "the aircraft must be capable of employing a variety of air-to-ground weapons and munitions," including aerial gunnery, at least two 500-pound class precision munitions, 2.75-inch rockets, and flares. This new irregular warfare aircraft is to have dual, tandem seats with dual controls for both pilots, enabling it to function as either a combat or training aircraft, and its supposed to be armored against small-arms fire. There's no indication whether this platform would fill the new light gunship capability desired by special operators. USAF has said it's investigating several platforms, but US Special Operations Command in late June said it still wanted a C-27 gunship. According to the announcement, the service would like to achieve initial operating capability with the LAAR aircraft in Fiscal 2013.


----------

