Skip to comments.USAF test center fuses old, new technology for light attack
Posted on 10/15/2010 6:41:58 AM PDT by sukhoi-30mki
USAF test center fuses old, new technology for light attack
07:03 GMT, October 15, 2010 DAVIS-MONTHAN AFB, Ariz. | 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.)"
"Overall, pilots are coming back after flying it excited about light attack," Colonel Colmer said. "They're enjoying the sorties and the aircraft's capabilities. Almost everyone has a list of things they would like to change, but that's what we expected. Now we'll take their input and make it a better aircraft."
Maj. Jesse Smith, an A-10 pilot from the 422nd Test and Evaluation Squadron at Nellis AFB, flew the modified AT-6 during a simulated combat search and rescue sortie Oct. 7.
"It's easy to handle," Major Smith said. "They took some of the systems and avionics from the A-10, so that made it easier for me to step in. Based on the scenario we had today, we were able to go out and execute."
"It's not the answer for everything, but if you look at what's going on in Iraq and Afghanistan, it's a good concept that can save money."
To buy and operate a light-attack aircraft costs pennies on the dollar compared to an A-10 or F-16.
For the A-10 or F-16, the cost per flying hour is around 15,000 to 17,000 dollars for fuel and maintenance.
Test center officials say the AT-6 is currently running at about 600 dollars per hour.
Though light attack is not viewed as a replacement for jets, Airmen here are finding out that the two-seat turboprop can fill a number of roles.
Pilots are examining the AT-6 as a companion trainer to give them a firsthand look at close air support from the air.
Combat controllers and tactical air control party members are also evaluating the aircraft as a possible trainer.
"Right now in the (joint terminal attack control) community, there are not enough sorties to keep them trained," Colonel Colmer said. "One thought is that this type of aircraft could be based with their units so they could get more practice with controlling an aircraft that adequately replicates an A-10 or F-16. They could even fly more often to gain a sense of a pilot's perspective."
In domestic operations it could support border security, counter drug and homeland defense.
For state missions, during fires, floods or other disasters, it could use sensors to map out an area for responders.
Additionally, officials believe a light-attack platform can help build partner nation air forces that lack the funding and the need for jet-powered aircraft.
"It's exciting to be a proponent for light attack in this early stage when the possibilities seem endless and we can demonstrate what one of these airplanes could do," said Colonel Colmer, who emphasized that light attack is not yet a procurement program.
Usually, testing occurs after an aircraft is purchased. In this case, Colonel Colmer and his team have a unique opportunity to help develop and refine a set of technologies and weapons for a light-attack airplane and give decision makers a clear picture before they buy a platform.
"For the last 18 months, we've been working on requirements and technologies to integrate on the aircraft," Colonel Colmer said. "Future iterations of tests will integrate Hellfire missiles, Aim 9 Sidewinders and various other weapons."
---- Maj. Gabe Johnson 162nd Fighter Wing Public Affairs / AFNS
Maj. Jesse Smith exits an AT-6C after testing the light-attack aircraft's ability to perform a CSAR mission.
Back to the future. I wonder what its capabilities are for absorbing punishment.
Aircraft such as the Skyraider should have never left our inventory. All the actual benefits of cost, ease of maintenance, ease of training, ability to stay on mission for hours as opposed to minutes, etc. I guess low and slow just isn’t sexy enough.
Can’t it take a hit (or 10) and keep on giving?
And what about endurance? Note the BIG external fuel tank(s).
Just bring back the Douglas A-1 Skyraider!
You beat me to the comment about Skyraiders by 2 minutes.
Bring back Sandy!
“Sandy” and “Hobo”...may they live in our memories forever.
Conceptually, it’s similar to a manned Predator.
JMHO, of course.
That design never did make sense to me....
‘cept that Predators don’t do the CLOSE part of close air support.
A strafing aircraft has a BIG morale effect on troopers.
But then again, so does a Sudden-Hellfire-From-Heaven making a DIRECT hit on the gomers who thought they were safe in that mud-walled compound 300M away from ya.
They’re doin’ it wrong.
They need big, tough radial engines that will run forever on minimal maintenance and can absorb damage and keep on running. They need big, boxy airframes that can be adapted to whatever needs doing. They need big, well sprung landing gear that can handle rough fields. They need cannons that deliver HE or AP.
They need AD1 Skyraiders or the Il-10 version of the Sturmovik.
The “high-tech” should be in the sensors and the precision guided munitions that can be swapped out as the mission demands.
A Sandy saved my bacon once. I found the pilot, kissed him full on the lips and bought him a water buffalo steak and some beer. Craziest piece of flying I have ever seen.
Now that’s one bird I’d love to fly. It may be a trainer, but I’ll guarantee you it’s hot compared to other single-engine props available to general aviation.
I flew a WWII SNJ (Navy version of T-6 Texan) once and was stunned at what that 600HP radial could do - for a few seconds at least. The owner/friend (now deceased - went in in a P-38 similar to one his dad flew in WWII) was aerobatic rated and we had a lot of fun in it.
I’m sure this bird is hotter than the SNJ.
It looks like the trainers used by the USAF in San Antonio. Their route runs right over I-35 and 1604. You can hear the turbo whining. Sounds cool.
Actually I'd like to see the three A/C fly together for comparison. My guess is that the AT-6 would compare fairly well to a P-51. Comparison with a Skyraider is another matter; few aircraft have the performance to make a takeoff with wings folded... '-)
My best friends dad flew for the SVAF & he would tell us about bombing & strafing runs all the time.
Over 400 kills in one run alone. Mr.Vo was the Man!
How about this, the ARES from Burt Rutan's Scaled Composites? It can carry the GAU-12U 25mm cannon!
Yeah, the A-1 takeoff sans wings was likely due to the massive horsepower up front. Think Gee Bee Model R Super Sportster.
Turboprop power is an awesome thing. I got to do a minimum roll takeoff in a Maule Rocket once. I doubt we rolled 125 feet. The noise was amazing. We also landed that aircraft at 30 KIAS ;-) ... once.
SO ... the right powerplant mated to the right airframe can be a LOT of fun.
LOL. You’d have to add 50% thrust when you fire the GAU just to maintain airspeed!
If the SNJ was fun with 600hp, try the T-28B/C/D with 1425hp!
BTW, the Rocket was an internal combustion Continental (non-turbo) with variable pitch prop. Not a turboprop. Vso was 28 KIAS IIRC.
Can only imagine what it would be like to fly a small aerobatic airframe with that big turboprop up front.
Plus nothing beats the sound of a big angry radial engine at full throat. Even a Merlin ...
Watching TCs spray clearcut areas surrounded by 100-foot pines hereabouts is awesome! The guys drop out of sight, and, the next time you see or hear them, they are near-vertical -- right up against the pines at the far end of their run -- with the prop screaming. There is no mistaking that sound signature...
Why not save the cost and just retool for some P47s? This is probably one of the lamest ideas of all time. Build an aircraft that only has usefulness in Iraq and Afghanistan or some similar war and totally trash the F22.
Also, if they want an aircraft that can loiter, has slow speed and can strafe the hell of things why not build more A10s, the single most useful ground attack aircraft ever to exist in the US arsenal? Instead they are going to phase out the A10 and bring in prop aircraft, makes no sense to me.
Are you from that area? I used to live in Live Oak, real close to Randolph-Brooks.
Or bring back the BearCat.
The A-10 isn’t that great of a close combat performer. It has awesome firepower and the ability to take a beating, but it is still a higher airspeed aircraft than ideal and it suffers from lower thrust than its weight demands, not to mention is G-loading isn’t that impressive.
Prop aircraft can fly slower speeds, cost far less to build and operate, and still maintain excellent firepower. We don’t need the tank busting 30mm the A-10 has in close air support roles, and it really isn’t even needed on the modern battlefield as missile technology now allows standoff ranges to protect the aircraft when killing armor.
A good high-altitude strafing platform with long loiter times is what has been needed but we really don’t have one.
The Navy and USAF fighter pilots who flew with "Imminent Fury" prefer the A-29 which has already been used to whack FARC guerillas in South America.
No question that the AT-6/SNJ is sluggish and a dog compared to even almost any real WWII fighter - but for one who had/has flown only light aircraft, it was incredible.
It’s all in what it is being compared to.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.