USAF Light Attack

[supersean]

Ok... is it just me or is light attack a role that should be done exclusively via UAV?

http://www.airforcetimes.com/news/2009/ ... e_080309w/

I believe the additional costs associated with supporting in cockpit pilot systems, training could be better used elsewhere. Your thoughts?

[supersean]

YIKES.... put in the wrong forum can this be moved to the Military Aviation thread... please!

[PurduePilot]

Is this the same one we were discussing a few weeks back? It sounds like it is but I thought that RFI went out in the beginning of August. Though I just spent 4 hours frying my brain on electromagnetism hw so I may be imagining things...

[FrankM]

Moved to military aviation

[supersean]

Is this the same one we were discussing a few weeks back? It sounds like it is but I thought that RFI went out in the beginning of August. Though I just spent 4 hours frying my brain on electromagnetism hw so I may be imagining things...

I dont remember discussing this bid here.. but then again my jet lagged brain aint doin so well either!

[Robert Hilton]

Looking at the requirement I would say it has been drawn up around any number of trainers already in production. Modifying a trainer would be cheaper than building a new UAV.
Thanks for moving it Frank, it had escaped my attention.

[Marc 1]

Boeing has a proposal for a re-engined OV-10 Bronco with updated avionics. Boeing inherits the OV-10 Bronco's design rights from its purchase in the 1980s of North American Rockwell, the aircraft's original manufacturer. Probably a better bet than a souped up trainer.

Other airframes being considered are: Pa-48 Enforcer, Super Tucano, AT-6 or the M346 jet trainer.

OV10.jpg (91.26 KiB) Viewed 8417 times

[Marc 1]

Double post.

[Princess Leia]

I really like the OV-10 option over any souped-up trainer or cropduster. I can't imagine how a trainer would accomodate the proposed turretized gun system (which the OV-10 has already flown) let alone the extra armor stipulated. Plus there's the whole two-engine redundancy benefit.

I still don't understand how this could be cheaper than a UAV like Reaper, liotering, observing and plinking targets from above MANPAD and 14.5mm range with Hellfires and LGB/JDAMs.

[Marc 1]

I really like the OV-10 option over any souped-up trainer or cropduster. I can't imagine how a trainer would accomodate the proposed turretized gun system (which the OV-10 has already flown) let alone the extra armor stipulated. Plus there's the whole two-engine redundancy benefit.

I still don't understand how this could be cheaper than a UAV like Reaper, liotering, observing and plinking targets from above MANPAD and 14.5mm range with Hellfires and LGB/JDAMs.

UAV's can have much longer loiter times than manned platforms, so you'd maybe need twice as many Bronco's as UAV's, plus there is the benefit that aircrew are not put in danger. Aircrew are expensive to train and maintain, and casualties are politically 'undesirable'.

That said, having a human directly on the spot in the loop is far more flexible in his responses than a bloke looking at a monitor 8000 miles away.

Brochure for the Bronco: http://www.ov-10bronco.net/Technical/bo ... 009_01.pdf

[rattler]

erhmmmm.. deleted for writing rubbish...

Admins: Can we allow members to delete their own posts, please?

Rattler

[Princess Leia]

Nah, otherwise we'd run into a discreet lack of posts for posterity on ball-shaving.

[Robert Hilton]

Nah, otherwise we'd run into a discreet lack of posts for posterity on ball-shaving.

I'm finding the link to mil av a little tenuous, but I'm willing to give a little leeway.