• This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn more.

Secret Program Works to Field SEAL Plane

formerBrat

Lab Animal
Member
Joined
Aug 25, 2007
Messages
221
Location
SoTX
#21
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?
 
A

arizonaguide

Guest
#22
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

Formerly Known as Freefalling
Administrator
Joined
Sep 8, 2006
Messages
13,194
Location
Not Afghanistan
#23
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.
 
A

arizonaguide

Guest
#24
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! ;)
 
A

arizonaguide

Guest
#25
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

SOF Support
Joined
Apr 2, 2008
Messages
140
Location
FL
#26
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.
 
A

arizonaguide

Guest
#27
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!
:)
 
A

arizonaguide

Guest
#29
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

Formerly Known as Freefalling
Administrator
Joined
Sep 8, 2006
Messages
13,194
Location
Not Afghanistan
#30
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.
 
Joined
Feb 18, 2009
Messages
1,650
Location
banned
#32
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

Cool By Association
Verified SOF
Joined
Oct 18, 2008
Messages
94
Location
JBLM
#33
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. :D
 

Vat_69

Cleared hot.
SOF Support
Joined
Jul 17, 2009
Messages
90
Location
FOB Cannon
#34
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.
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.
 
A

arizonaguide

Guest
#36
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

SOF Support
Joined
Apr 2, 2008
Messages
140
Location
FL
#37
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

SOWT
Verified SOF
Joined
Aug 18, 2007
Messages
8,413
Location
San Antonio Texas
#38
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.