The Air Force Seeks the F-22's Low-Tech Alternative (bring back the Mustang?)

Time ^ | 8/27/2009 | Mark Thompson

[markomalley]

The Air Force spent years fighting to keep building the $350 million F-22 fighter, an airplane crammed with so much gee-whiz technology there's a law barring it from being sold to any other nation. But since no other nation is building such a plane to challenge it, the F-22 has become a costly investment with an uncertain payoff, and Defense Secretary Robert Gates just killed it. That sent an unmistakable message to the two new top Air Force officials Gates recently appointed, and now the service is seeking 100 slower, lower-flying and far cheaper airplanes — most likely prop-driven — that it can use to kill insurgents today and use to train local pilots — such as Afghans or Iraqis — tomorrow.

The list of requirements for what the Air Force is calling its Light Attack Armed Reconnaissance plane is fairly basic, and harkens back to the Vietnam-era A-1 Skyraider. It must be capable of flying 900-mile missions at up to 200 miles per hour (compared with up to 1500 mph for the F-22), including at night and poor weather. It will carry guns and rockets, along with a pair of 500-pound bombs, according to an Air Force solicitation issued last month. It will have to fly to and from dirt airfields where the only ground support is fuel. The its two pilots will have warning systems for enemy radars and missiles, an armored cockpit and self-sealing fuel tanks — and ejection seats if those protections fail. It should convert from an attack plane to a trainer by simply removing those weapons.

[Centurion2000]

That should make our enemies cringe, right?

Against an insurgent ? yeah it will do nicely.

Against a MANPAD ... lot easier to survive a hit from a missile in a P-51 versus an F-22.

[Oztrich Boy]

A prop aircraft might not have enough IR signature for many man-portable SAMs to lock on.

OTOH a slow aircraft is a piece of cake for a Command to Line of Sight or a Laser beam rider to track

[o2bfree]

Bring back the Zero for Zero !

[Oztrich Boy]

Well P-51, OV-10 are old designs

But somebody like Bert Rutan could probably design a small 475mph machine around a 5 barrel 25mm Gatling ... 20 years ago

[GonzoGOP]

You’re probably off by several orders of magnitude. A simple drone for army use could probably be produced (not developed) for $20k/unit.

I'll stick with my numbers. The JDAM itself costs $35,000 to $70,000 just for the tail kit. A UCAV, not just a model aircraft with a camera, but something that can actually drop bombs and strafe tanks, is going to cost a lot more than a bomb. A BGM-109 Tomahawk costs 1.4 million, although congress wants to cut it to half that with the next order. And it only has to fly one way.

Does the government over price things, Yes. Does the military feature creep projects till they cost 10 times what they should, Hell Yes. Can they build a UCAV that can bomb, strafe, and fly COIN missions for under a million a pop, not much of a chance.

[OneWingedShark]

The drone itself, not the armament... after all you don’t pay for all the ammo you shoot when you buy your gun.

And to be honest, once you get past the designing (which includes prototypes etc) and get to production-level models you introduce the cost-dropping effect of the assembly-line.

If it was me doing it, I’d want to produce 10k to 50k on the “first order” and then extensively use them, remember the goal here is “cheap UAVs” and as such should be bought on such a scale that it would be integrated into many/most army units much like the OE-254 (a big antenna) is commonly found in Communication sections across the nation (and overseas, I’d wager).

[GonzoGOP]

The drone itself, not the armament... after all you don’t pay for all the ammo you shoot when you buy your gun.

Using that same example the gun costs a lot more then the ammo you put in it. The ammo is an expendable and hence is cheap. A UCAV would need to be at least as big as a small aircraft and have a guidance system at least as good as the BGM-109. Now a Cessna super cargo master is a little slower than what we are looking for, but it is a turboprop aircraft with the range and payload a simple UCAV would need. It has a useful load of 3972 pounds, so a couple of JDAMS. Its range is 870 nautical miles, just about right for this kind of mission. It costs $1,812,500. Now you have to add in the guidance system so it can find its target without a pilot. Lets say that costs as much as the guidance package on the JDAM. That's another $70,000. Now you need air to air refueling capability. No idea how much that costs, but it won't be free. And military grade como gear and satellite uplink. Also not free. So how do you combine a 1.8 million dollar aircraft, a $70,000 guidance system, tack on a refueling package and a communications and come out under 50k?

remember the goal here is “cheap UAVs”

And a 2 million dollar UCAV (not UAV) is in fact cheap. That's only slightly more than a cruise missile, if you get to use it twice you are ahead of the game. A stinger missile cost $38,000 each but if you fly over 15,000 feet they can't touch you. Now a patriot runs $3 million dollars each. Not for the launcher, just for the part that goes bang. The Russian S-300 costs less, but since it has a lower success rate you would need to fire more than one missile to be sure of a hit.

Keep your drone under the cost of the weapon designed to destroy it and it is by definition cheap.

[A.A. Cunningham]

we’ve only lost 5 in battle to date (four in Desert Storm and one in Iraqi Freedom).

The air force lost a total of six A-10s during Desert Storm and 1 in OIF.

That’s pretty amazing when you consider that they built more than 750 of them.

That's too broad a generalization to make. One has to consider several factors; how many were deployed in theater, what type of ATOs were generated, of those that were damaged how many were returned to service, how many were stricken, etc. You can't rely solely on the ratio of losses to the aggregate built.

[A.A. Cunningham]

According to data obtained via MISREP during OIF; from 13 March 2003 through 18 April 2003, the Iraqis fired a total of 1660 SAMs of all types at coalition aircraft

[PIF]

Snappy I like it... But too expensive, you know there are homeless to feed.

[Yo-Yo]

Oh yeah. No problem. Let's see.... The factory is a crumbling hulk in Bethpage, gone for 25 years...

The tooling, the mylars, the analysis, everything, gone gone gone (well, Northrop and the AF have the docs, allegedly)

And the people, who are absolutely the most important component, cuz they know where the bodies are buried in the design...dumped. Gone. Dead (really).

Funny, since Boeing won a $2 billion contract in 2007 to build new A-10 wings.

I guess they're scratching their heads right now and cruising the bingo halls of The Villages looking for retired Republic engineers...

[Regulator]

I guess they're scratching their heads right now and cruising the bingo halls of The Villages looking for retired Republic engineers...

In a lot of these contracts that's exactly what they do. They bring in retirees as contractors. Whether Boeing needs to do that with the information they have or not, I don't know, but it's a pretty common practice. Right now, there are at least 3 guys within earshot of me in my office who fit that description. We couldn't have met contractural obligations without them.

Note also that it's 2 Billion just to have the wings built on contract...at least at this point. Just the wings for 240 airplanes. Now extrapolate that to the entire airframe, and remember that Boeing has existing plants that do contract work.

So did it make sense to let Republic go down the drain? Was it fair to them after they produced the original airplane?

The point is that the re-start costs in both dollar and human terms are enormous.

[myknowledge]

Off-the-Shelf Killer Bees Return of the Cactus Air Force Attack of the Killer Bees: the return of the Air Cavalry

[myknowledge]

The A-10 can withstand AAA whereas a fighter cannot.

Stealth fighters like the F-22 Raptor would clear out SAM sites while the air cav (A-10s) moves in.

[myknowledge]

It’s possible.

[myknowledge]

Since the Spad doesn’t have a jet engine, an SA-7 MANPAD will have trouble locking onto an A-1.

[myknowledge]

But they’re unmanned.

A manned CAS aircraft will be the traditional alternative.
Manned by an enlisted USAF pilot. Maybe this trend would be a catalyst for the revival of enlisted USAF pilots. Flying chevrons, if you will, and assign a Captain or Major instead of an LTC as a CAS aircraft squadron CO.

[PapaBear3625]

But they’re unmanned.

They ARE manned. The person manning them is doing it remotely, but there IS a human controlling the aircraft, and particularly all decisions to fire.

[myknowledge]

Helicopters are more noisy than piston-engined CAS aircraft and consume more fuel for less range. THE GRASSHOPPERS MUST RETURN!

[myknowledge]

They do count, and they will be the Raptor’s Gen 5 adversaries.

How long do you think the Raptor’s air dominance capability would last when the PAK FA and J-XX come into IOC?