The Beechcraft AT-6B
Posted on 04/24/2009 11:15:14 AM PDT by sukhoi-30mki
USAF chief says "light strike" fighter could be needed
By Stephen Trimble
The US Air Force's top officer said today that a "light strike" platform optimized for the irregular warfare mission could be added to the service's inventory of manned fighters.
Such an aircraft could serve both as a basic trainer for the USAF and "partner" air forces, and as an attack platform in operations against terrorists and insurgents, said Gen Norton Schwartz, USAF chief of staff.
"There is a legitimate need to talk about the light strike role and the building partner capacity role, and we certainly intend to have that discussion in the coming months," Schwartz said following a speech on the USAF's role in irregular warfare at the Brookings Institute.
In Vietnam, the USAF operated the Douglas A-1 Skyraider to attack irregular forces known as the Viet Cong, but has since abandoned the use of such manned, propeller-driven aircraft in combat.
However, Schwartz, a former special operations commander, said he plans to launch talks in June with the USAF leadership on the need for a specialized irregular warfare unit.
Schwartz added that the USAF generally wishes to avoid operating single-mission aircraft, and prefers buying platforms with "general purpose", or multi-role capability. A joint basic trainer/light strike fighter may fit Schwartz's description.
The USAF currently operates the Hawker Beechcraft (HBC) T-6A II Texan as the joint primary aircraft training system (JPATS) to qualify all pilots. HBC has also proposed an attack version of the JPATS platform called the AT-6, with a capability to drop precision munitions and carry .50-calibre machine gun pods.
"If we had a primary trainer that is for basic pilot training that could be easily reconfigured into a light strike platform -- and then you would have a cadre of instructors who could sort of make that transition quickly to a building partner capacity role in the same airplane, and the same crew, and perhaps folks who we have arranged to have language skills that's a part of their repertoire -- that is a very attractive way to solve this problem," Schwartz said.
The Beechcraft AT-6B
Good idea, but when the AF gets down adding all the crap to this aircraft, each one will end up costing $20M.
Well Gee, if they’re looking at the AT-6, why not bring back the tried and true P-51 Mustang?
THAT was a kick-ass aircraft.
Sure, let’s get rid of the fighter for the 21st century, and buy some fighters for the 20th.
once BHO’s finished gutting the military, all you’ll have left is a lucky strike.
The turboprops have their advantages-one being is endurance. I think they can loiter around considerably longer than an A-10.
Revive the F-20.
You know, they have helicopters that can do this kind of thing...
Ya beat me to it, wasn’t that the smaller, lightweight. agile aircraft not put into production in the late 80’s?
It was too good, and too cheap.
And everyone trains on T-38’s so they are already familiar with the basic aircraft. But, that would be too logical.
A1 was an incredible platform. I've long believed a role still existed for an A1 type aircraft especially for counter-insurgency.
The radial engine and it's thermal profile visible front and rear by MANPAD's has been my understanding as to why the A1 was phased out of service in Vietnam. To what extent this is accurate, I don't know.
It's the Predator-B "Reaper" UAV.
That or upgrade the F16s like they have done ot the F15 stealth versions.
“You know, they have helicopters that can do this kind of thing...”
A helicopter cannot loiter that long.
USAF has always considered the Warthog just exactly that. An ugly un-sexy beast. They’ve tried to ditch it repeatedly. The only reason the USAF still has the A-10 in its inventory is because every time they try to get rid of it, the Army and Marines scream bloody murder and beg for it to be transferred into their control.
The USAF is stuck in the last century with its insistence on the whiz bang multi-billion dollar flying weapons systems and that only college educated and USAF trained “pilots” be allowed to fly them.
That, and the lax nuke security problem, is why they lost their entire upper command structure last year. And it is why the other services have so completely outdistanced them in the use of UAVs.
Full disclosure statement: I am an 8 year USAF veteran from last century.
IIRC, an article in the Atlantic around that time pointed out how the Northrop/Grumman(?)F20 lost the battle. Essentially, the reasons you cite.
Why can’t they just use the Warthog as a trainer and an antijihadi ground support - it’s tough and already well established......
Not a fighter, no doubt.
Or bring back the venerable Indian Gnat!
I think they are looking for something a little lighter than that.
“USAF would be much better off buying another couple hundred A-10s.”
That’s what I was thinking. I’d be curious how these would compare to an AT-6, esp. in terms of cost, speed and durability in combat.
My impression is that S. and C. America and other low intensity spots have done very well with prop. craft. Hard to imagine that we will always be fighting guys with just AK-74’s and bad attitudes though. Even an old 70’s era shoulder fired missile could catch a prop. plane.
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.