Sign in to follow this  
Marshall

US Air Force Buying Light Attack Planes

Recommended Posts

Will the RCAF also be looking at these aircraft which seem to be also suitable for defending Domestic territory?

Air

Air Force officially buying light attack planes

By: Aaron Mehta 29 minutes ago
4OPW3Z5XFFG7VG2X3LSMJQHZHM.jpg<img src="https://www.armytimes.com/resizer/yBoaQOHrbln3YTOJT84z8YTf9cc=/1200x0/filters:quality(100)/arc-anglerfish-arc2-prod-mco.s3.amazonaws.com/public/4OPW3Z5XFFG7VG2X3LSMJQHZHM.jpg" alt=""/>

An A-29 Super Tucano light attack aircraft arrives at Moody Air Force Base, Georgia, April 24, 2018. (U.S. Air Force photo by Airman 1st Class Erick Requadt)

 

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Air Force is officially putting down money to and buying two different models of light attack aircraft.

The service will purchase two to three aircraft each of the Textron Aviation AT-6 and Sierra Nevada Corporation/Embraer Defense & Security A-29 aircraft. The handful of planes will be used to support “allies and partner capacity, capability and interoperability via training and experimentation,” according to an Air Force announcement.

The A-29 contract should be awarded before the end of the year, with the AT-6 contract coming in early 2020.

The plan to buy a handful of planes was previewed earlier this year by Air Force officials, but the companies will likely breathe a sigh of relief that the deal is done. The purchase serves as a much-needed show of confidence for the two companies, which have invested internal funding over the past two years on the Air Force’s light-attack experiment and still hope the service moves forward with a bigger buy of light-attack aircraft in the future.

The missions and basing for the planes will be different. The AT-6s will go to Air Combat Command at Nellis Air Force Base, Nev., for “continued testing and development of operational tactics and standards for exportable, tactical networks that improve interoperability with international partners.” The A-29s will go to Air Force Special Operations Command at Hurlburt Field, Fla., and will be used to “develop an instructor pilot program for the Combat Aviation Advisory mission, to meet increased partner nation requests for light attack assistance,” per the release.

“Our focus is on how a light attack aircraft can help our allies and partners as they confront violent extremism and conduct operations within their borders,” Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. David Goldfein said in the statement. “Continuing this experiment, using the authorities Congress has provided, gives us the opportunity to put a small number of aircraft through the paces and work with partner nations on ways in which smaller, affordable aircraft like these can support their air forces.”

Experiments will continue with a focus on creating a joint architecture and information sharing.

The Air Force has said that funding for the initial AT-6 and A-29 buys will come out of the estimated $160 million in unspent funds that Congress appropriated for the effort in previous budgets. Congress has appropriated $200 million in total for the effort since it was announced in late 2016.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Kip Powick said:

Against whom ??? 

Better bang for our buck than expensive attack jet fighters and only of any use overseas.  As for against whom, domestic border patrol etc.  But perhaps we don't need any defensive military aircraft. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Kip Powick said:

Very correct

There is a reality, no one other that the US will ever attempt to take us over as long as the US is there and capable.  We of course, no matter what, would never be able to stop any takeover by the US.  So why waste $$$$$ on military attack aircraft when we would be best investing in, Rescue aircraft, icebreakers, Coastguard rescue vessels etc?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Marshall said:

There is a reality, no one other that the US will ever attempt to take us over as long as the US is there and capable.  We of course, no matter what, would never be able to stop any takeover by the US.  So why wast $$$$$ on military attack aircraft when we would be best investing in, Rescue aircraft, icebreakers, Coastguard rescue vessels etc?  

Wow...starting to think and say what I feel and say....

IMO...there is no requirement for Canadian fighter aircraft...... Make our NATO commitments Heavy Airlift only

We should maintain. operationally,  our Rescue Squadrons and  Normal Transport Squadrons (to assist in non armed-conflict areas in the world)

While it is "fun" to fly  the supersonic toys it is very difficult to rationalize why we have to bear the expense of training pilots and  maintaining  non required "whiz-bangs"

Perhaps, in time the Brass Hats at Disneyland North will realize  the futility of attempting to rationalize the need for Canadian Fighter Squadrons....

Bruised egos be damned....time to be realistic.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are we a sovereign nation or not?

We absolutely do need interceptors. 

We absolutely do not need turboprop light attack aircraft

We absolutely do need an extensive, Arctic capable Naval fleet.

We have to own the North and the Arctic moving forward.

That's where the pressure will and is coming, and from the Americans too. Our status quo capabilities basically cedes it to whomever wants to go up there... 

The Chinese nuclear ice breaker about to launch - rumoured to be the largest in the world - isn't for sailing the South China Sea...

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, j.k. said:

Are we a sovereign nation or not?

We absolutely do need interceptors. 

We absolutely do not need turboprop light attack aircraft

We absolutely do need an extensive, Arctic capable Naval fleet.

We have to own the North and the Arctic moving forward.

That's where the pressure will and is coming, and from the Americans too. Our status quo capabilities basically cedes it to whomever wants to go up there... 

The Chinese nuclear ice breaker about to launch - rumoured to be the largest in the world - isn't for sailing the South China Sea...

Who would we be "Intercepting"?   Aircraft over flying or an actual attack?  If an attack then I suspect we would need many more aircraft than we have or will have in the future. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Always an interesting subject. I don’t have the answers but nothing (in my experience at least) is ever as simple and absolute as we might hope it to be.

At one point, we didn’t think we needed tanks…. until we did in Afghanistan.

At another point, we didn’t think we needed heavy lift helicopters…. until we suddenly had to buy old ones from the US just to get by.

We also thought the days of shore bombardment (NGS) were long over too…. until it was needed in Libya.

In like manner, there are some folks who think we have no further need of maintaining a sub hunting (ASW) capability. Others seem to think the entire spectrum of surveillance (ISTAR) should be yielded to drones (UAV/UAS).    

Even if you are prepared to forego participation in NORAD, see no future possibility of the navy needing a force multiplier (TASMO), and you determine that your land forces will never have need of fighter assistance (CAS), there still remains one element to consider…. Fighters protect airspace and airspace is the domain of the rest of your air force, it’s also the canopy under which the other two elements fight.

Future requirements are a hard thing to anticipate and I’ve learned not to make sweeping pronouncements and predictions. God bless those with greater vision than I.

Edited by Wolfhunter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, j.k. said:

We absolutely do need interceptors. 

I will preface this post with this.........I realize this is an Airline Employee Forum and the vast majority of posts do adhere to the unwritten rule of keeping the forum to the subscribed topic. Obviously  I have gone off on a tangent  when I brought up the RCAF and their  non requirement for Fighter Aircraft.....thus ..this will be my last post and as some of you know I have been on the is forum since JW initiated "the " forum  just as CP and AC merged back in 2000.. All the posts that could be promulgated could not change my  opinion, and it is just that ...an opinion..............  vis-a-vis Fighter Aircraft for Canada...

Have a nice week.

 

(((((( now referring now to what I have quoted from  J.K. )))))

And the reason for this is....?

Echoing Marshall...who/what are we intercepting??...Time for a reality check J.K. .....Should the Chinese or the Russians plan to take over North America, our umbrella will be the USAF. Even each USAF  "Reserve" wing has more aircraft available than we do and then there are all the "real" fighter squadrons , some just a few miles south of the border,  and rest assured they will be up and over Canada long before we launch an aircraft. 

Also fellows, let's not mix "Grunt and Fish-head" hardware into the mix as that really just muddies the water.??

The mind set of many of the Brass in DND HQ is that we need to have everything we had in WW2 and obviously no elements of the air arm want to concede anything and as a result we, the public, are spending millions and millions  to appease those that baffle the civil sector of the government with "we gotta have this or we will look weak to the world. " 

I call BS.....Canada does not have to have Fighter Aircraft to be held in high esteem in the eyes of the world.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Happy to disagree on it.

The world is changing, Russian, Chinese, whoever will be and are challenging our ability to control our territory. Particularly in the Arctic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Getting back to the original topic... ? 

The AT-6 and the A-29 are remarkably similar. I find it interesting that the USAF is buying some of each kind. A lot of overlap, no?

Can you tell the difference?

 

AT6-A29.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Tango Niner said:

But why buy both? I still don't get it... ?

They're buying like 5 or 6 of each to develop training programs for other militaries. Banana Republic needs an airforce on the cheap? Uncle SAM isn't getting them F35s, but is ready to get them up and running with these.

The US has no need of these for their own operations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, j.k. said:

They're buying like 5 or 6 of each to develop training programs for other militaries. Banana Republic needs an airforce on the cheap? Uncle SAM isn't getting them F35s, but is ready to get them up and running with these.

The US has no need of these for their own operations.

So maybe some for the RCAF, as we don't need the F35s ?  And here is something that we do need .... https://theairlinewebsite.com/topic/527607-homes-for-heroes/?tab=comments#comment-1827282

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this