• Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?

    Go here:

    Edit Account Details and Profile

Return of Turboprops to CAS role?

aircav06

New Member
None
Hmmmm.....so the USAF wants a "irregular warfare" wing complete with turboprop close air support aircraft...

The irregular warfare wing concept seeks to introduce the first dedicated strike aircraft for fighting insurgent forces since the Douglas A-1 Skyraider in the Vietnam war.

"One possible candidate for the light strike role is the air-to-ground modified [Beechcraft] AT-6B. Other candidate aircraft include the [Embraer] Tucano or Super Tucano," the AFSOC paper states.

http://www.flightglobal.com/article...orce-planners-want-irreguar-warfare-wing.html
 

Purdue

Chicks Dig Rotors...
pilot
OOOO Oooo... I have 116 hours in that airframe already, I'll take it into combat! Of course, I'll get my ass shot out of the sky... but it will be a ton of FUN!!!

Hmm.... not worth a tour with the AF... but mighty tempting! Even if it is ludicrous sounding and never going to happen.
 

skidkid

CAS Czar
pilot
Super Moderator
Contributor
OOOO Oooo... I have 116 hours in that airframe already, I'll take it into combat! Of course, I'll get my ass shot out of the sky... but it will be a ton of FUN!!!

Hmm.... not worth a tour with the AF... but mighty tempting! Even if it is ludicrous sounding and never going to happen.


That is more time than most of "The Few" had in the Battle of Britain and they did ok.
 

Flash

SEVAL/ECMO
None
Super Moderator
Contributor
Never say never..

The A-37 and A-34C have both seen combat.

The Greeks are using the AT-6 already.

That would be the T-34C-1 (equipped to handle hardpoints)........and I believe they never fired a shot, just got shot at. I think one was taken as a war prize back to the UK and is in a museum.

http://www.airliners.net/open.file?id=0449775&size=L

The A-37 is still in service and has seen extensive combat, both in Vietnam and with many South American countries that have used it as a COIN aircraftand a few to shoot down druggies.

P.S. The proposed aircraft would be an ideal one to intercept and deal with light civil aircraft, which are the type that are the most intercepted by the alert fghters nowadays. The F-16's that intercepted the light civil a while ago here in DC had a bitch of a time getting his attention because they could not slow down enough to get his attention, it took a helo to finally get his head out of ass.
 

bunk22

Super *********
pilot
Super Moderator
I think the pilots name was Sharky Ward, the skipper of one of the Sea Harrier squadrons in the Falklands war, and chased some Argentine T-34C's into a cloud and put a 30mm round through a canopy. It landed safely though. He did go on to bag a Dagger, Pucara and C-130 though.
 

FlyinSpy

Mongo only pawn, in game of life...
Contributor
You can't do better than the OV-10 in that line of work - blow the dust off them at Davis Monthan and you can be in business pretty darn quick!
 

Attachments

  • ov-10-nog.jpg
    ov-10-nog.jpg
    31.4 KB · Views: 254

usmarinemike

Solidly part of the 42%.
pilot
Contributor
Irregular is right. Can somebody please justify this new wing for me? Is it in support of SOF? The article plays up the idea that the Air Force has no aircraft dedicated to counter-insurgency. Well, that's why the Army and Marine Corps have their own assets.

What is the mission of a "light strike" aircraft? What's different about fixed wing light strike and helicopter-borne CAS? The planners sure do like the turboprops for light strike. And foreign ones at that; EADS, Embraer, Alenia? And how about a Caravan in a light strike role like the article suggests. I love Caravans. They have great capacity, but I don't see it getting too far past IP inbound.

I can see them standing up some extra assets, but most of the ideas in this article aren't going to happen. That's my humble opinion.
 

raptor10

Philosoraptor
Contributor
Irregular is right. Can somebody please justify this new wing for me? Is it in support of SOF? The article plays up the idea that the Air Force has no aircraft dedicated to counter-insurgency. Well, that's why the Army and Marine Corps have their own assets.

What is the mission of a "light strike" aircraft? What's different about fixed wing light strike and helicopter-borne CAS? The planners sure do like the turboprops for light strike. And foreign ones at that; EADS, Embraer, Alenia? And how about a Caravan in a light strike role like the article suggests. I love Caravans. They have great capacity, but I don't see it getting too far past IP inbound.

I can see them standing up some extra assets, but most of the ideas in this article aren't going to happen. That's my humble opinion.

The more things change the more they... you know how it goes. It looks like they are trying to regain a lost capability...
OV-10A Bronco
The North American Rockwell OV-10 Bronco is a turboprop-driven light attack and observation aircraft. It was developed in the 1960s as a special aircraft for COIN (counter insurgency) combat.
 

VetteMuscle427

is out to lunch.
None
Irregular is right. Can somebody please justify this new wing for me? Is it in support of SOF? The article plays up the idea that the Air Force has no aircraft dedicated to counter-insurgency. Well, that's why the Army and Marine Corps have their own assets.

What is the mission of a "light strike" aircraft? What's different about fixed wing light strike and helicopter-borne CAS? The planners sure do like the turboprops for light strike. And foreign ones at that; EADS, Embraer, Alenia? And how about a Caravan in a light strike role like the article suggests. I love Caravans. They have great capacity, but I don't see it getting too far past IP inbound.

I can see them standing up some extra assets, but most of the ideas in this article aren't going to happen. That's my humble opinion.

How about the cost? It would cost a hell of a lot less to operate a T-6 type aircraft compared to an F-16 to drop a single bomb. I would rather have 25 AT-6s heading out each night to look for guys planting IEDs along supply routes as opposed to 4 F-16s.And it would fulfill a gap in the capabilities between a helo and a fixed wing jet. An AT-6 might fit that magical Osprey escort nitch that neither a helo or jet can properly fill.

And the idea for transport assets seems logical to me. The Army has Shirpas and such for intra-theater transport where it would not be economical to have a C-130.
 

A4sForever

BTDT OLD GUY
pilot
Contributor
That's understandable. But why was the capability lost during the years of insurgent hotspots between the intro of the OV-10 and now?
It was "lost" because it doesn't make enough $$$$ for the really big defense contractors ... and it doesn't command a large piece of the DoD budget (read: power, face, influence, bigger piece of the pie) for military chieftains .... if "it" did, -- i.e., low intensity warfighting capability and assets --- we would have never "lost" them ... :)

Same thing happened with inshore warfare and brown water operations ... and mine-sweeping ... ??? What's that???

Two problems: we have short memories .... and we have overinflated budget/procurement priorities, both in industry and the DoD.

Just my $20 worth ...

"Never say never"??? How about .... the more things change ... :)
 
Top