Seems the US Air Force and some others are looking at an attack version of the T-6 propellor trainer. So a prop plane with all the modern bells and whistles.
DAVIS-MONTHAN AIR FORCE BASE, Ariz. (AFNS) -- Test pilots and engineers here are learning what happens when high-tech systems are combined with low-tech airframes for a new, cost effective, light-attack aircraft.
Light attack, a revitalized concept in the Air Force, addresses the need for an airplane that offers surveillance as well as strike capabilities and walks the line between remotely piloted aircraft and high-performance fighters.
In appearance, Hawker Beechcraft AT-6Cs resemble the fighters of yesteryear with single engine propellers and shark-face nose art. They are, in actuality, one possible candidate for Air Force light attack aircraft and the latest project for Air National Guard Air Force Reserve Command Test Center officials based at Tucson International Airport.
Lt. Col. Keith Colmer, a developmental test pilot and director of engineering for AATC, deployed to Iraq in early 2008, where he flew numerous close air support missions in F-16 Fighting Falcons.
During more than 100 combat hours, he served as an eye in the sky for Army elements but he said he rarely engaged the enemy on their behalf.
"Right now we are paying a high cost to fly an F-16 in terms of fuel and wear and tear for missions that don't require the full capabilities of the airplane," said Colonel Colmer, who leads AATC's light-attack program. "With fourth generation fighters nearing the end of their service life, a light-attack platform could take on these kinds of missions and lighten the load."
The test center, which conducts operational tests on behalf of the Reserve, is manned by a team of active-duty, Guard, Reserve, civilian and contractor members who field low-cost, low-risk, off-the-shelf improvements for aircraft and weapons systems.
Officials said the center's unique efficiency is perfect for building and evaluating a light-attack aircraft.
"In keeping with our '80 percent of the capability for 20 percent of the cost' motto, we took existing technology from the A-10 (Thunderbolt II) and F-16 and inserted it in the AT-6," Colonel Colmer said.
Mounted next to the AT-6's manual flight controls, levers, cables and pulleys are mission computers, situational awareness data links, radios, helmet-mounted cueing systems, hands-on stick and throttles, threat countermeasures and armament pylons typically found on current fighter and attack aircraft.
"We learned a lot from initial testing earlier this year and made several adjustments," Colonel Colmer said. "The testing this month is about bringing in testers from around the Air Force; A-10 and F-16 pilots from Edwards (Air Force Base, Calif.), Nellis (AFB, Nev.), and Eglin (AFB, Fla.)"
That whirring sound you hear is Hap Arnold spinning in his grave. Several generations of Air Force leaders have spent their careers worshipping at the temple of high technology. One of their precepts is "Speed is life". Another is "the more it costs, the better it is". When the A-10 first came into service, it was supposed to be deployed to Reserve and National Guard units.
The idea is a good one, at least in my opinion, but I don't see the Air Force leadership buying in to a program like this. But I've been wrong many times in the past, and will be many times in the future.
How about building more A-10's? Or if you want a prop job, the Skyraider? There were a couple of great close support aircraft.
Groundlber
Back in the 1980's while working for the DoD I put forward the idea of a cheap version of an A10; twin prop (pushers) and with a twin wing arrangement (biplane!). With new materials like carbon fibre laminates, and a much better efficiency from the internal combustion engine than was previously the case, it offered a slightly faster and much longer ranged alternative to attack helicopters. The biplane arrangement is so that very small fields could be used as well as improving agility without compromising lift (and therefore endurance). The idea was laughed at, of course.
In 2009 Morocco has ordered 24 T6-C to replace its training planes. Cost of the contract 185 million $ incvluding technical assiatance, etc.
I do not know if the lectronic suite is the same under test by USAF.
On the duty of AT-6C I quote an article of FLIGHT, April 2010 relevant to the flight of the second prototype:
The AT-6 is among several potential bidders for the LAAR contract, a competition for which is expected to start next year. Embraer is preparing to offer its EMB-314 Super Tucano, which is operated by USN special operations.
Boeing has released a concept drawing of the OV-10X Bronco, an updated version of a Vietnam-era combat aircraft, while Alenia Aermacchi wants to offer an armed version of the M-346 Master advanced jet trainer.
The LAAR aircraft is expected to fill a potential niche in the USAF inventory for aircraft optimised for irregular warfare campaigns. The service released a request for information last August, surveying rough performance and pricing data for each of the various concepts.
It's all about the power struggle between the branches. According to an agreement going back to the establishment of the Air Force (when it ceased to be the Army Air Corps), the Army can have armed helicopters and unarmed fixed-wing aircraft, but if it has fixed wings and armament, it belongs to the Air Force.
Since the Navy was not a part of this agreement, the Marines can have both.
It is an old problem in all the countries with an independent air force. In Italy this situation exists since 1923 and it was a periodical struggle with the Navy more than the Army.
For example during the last war, the planes and relevant personnel on the planned aircraft would have been of the Air Force not of the Navy. The pilots were of the Air Force the observers were from the Navy or the Army according to the deplyement.
After the war the division of duties has been fixed as you said but was modified in 1990 to allow tha Navy to buy (and fly) the AV-8A
A few years ago in Proceedings a USMC LtCol had an article advocating an upgraded Skyraider and the Nov 2010 (?) had another article on it. The benefits they listed were cost (assuming it doesn't get gold plated), smaller mfgs make them (spreading money/jobs around), loiter time, and because they were "cheaper" they could be handed over to host nations. The host nation would be training in them anyway so when it came time to build up an air force it would be quicker to just have an armed version of what they knew and could afford. I was bummed when they phased out the Broncos.
