News>Test center fuses old, new technology for light attack
Photos
Maj. Jesse Smith exits a Hawker Beechcraft AT-6C after testing the light-attack aircraft's ability to perform a combat search and rescue mission Oct. 7, 2010, at Davis-Monthan Air Force Base, Ariz. Major Smith is one of several pilots invited by the Air National Guard Air Force Reserve Command Test Center to fly the experimental airplane this month and provide recommendations for improving its capability. Major Smith is an A-10 pilot from the 422nd Test and Evaluation Squadron at Nellis Air Force Base, Nev. (U.S. Air Force photo/Maj. Gabe Johnson)
A Hawker Beechcraft AT-6C, modified for various light-attack missions, releases flares during an operational test Oct. 5, 2010, over the Southern Arizona desert. It was the first time flare buckets, or aircraft survivability equipment, were mounted onto the airplane and fully integrated with the control system on board. A team of pilots and engineers certified that the airplane could separate the flares correctly while learning if the modification would have adverse effects on the airplane's handling. (U.S. Air Force photo/Master Sgt. Dave Neve)
A Hawker Beechcraft AT-6C, modified for various light attack missions, conducts an operational test Oct. 5, 2010, over the Southern Arizona desert. It was the first time flare buckets, or aircraft survivability equipment, were mounted onto the airplane and fully integrated with the control system on board. A team of pilots and engineers certified that the airplane could separate the flares correctly while learning if the modification would have adverse effects on the airplane's handling. (U.S. Air Force photo/Master Sgt. Dave Neve)
by Maj. Gabe Johnson
162nd Fighter Wing Public Affairs
10/14/2010 - DAVIS-MONTHAN AIR FORCE BASE, Ariz. (AFNS) -- 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."
Comments
10/12/2011 11:57:49 PM ET About fracking time like delayed 40 years by ex 3 and 4 stars now working for the defense industrycontractors
MaddogStarbuck, TucsonAz
10/19/2010 4:46:25 PM ET This is a great idea whose time has come. However the cost per flying hour for the A-10 and F-16 are grossly misreported in this article. A-10C flying hour cost is approx $4,500 and the F-16C is $7,700. Great platform to help with pilot absorption issues as well since we are gutting the CAF.
G, DC
10/18/2010 8:48:24 AM ET As the British are undergoing a massive spending review, for goodness sake don't tell the Royal Air Force as it could mean a light at the end of the tunnel for them. I've always said it could be useful to go 'stoneage' and retro fit vehicles/airframes. More bang for you buck - worked well for Stalin and his T-34s.
Chris, UK
10/18/2010 7:08:15 AM ET I'm with Jonesy from Virgina. I was station in Pleiku, Vietnam, in 66 and 67. We had A1's. Many years ago I corresponded with Col. S. Stanton, author of Viet Nam Order of Battle. We spoke of the air support the Special Forces received in Nam from the A1s, especially the anbility to provide close in air support. Keep up the good work. God bless America and our Armed Forces. Matt Cresta, President, Pleiku Air Base Viet Nam Assoc.
Matt Cresta, Philadelphia
10/15/2010 4:23:10 PM ET To all the men and women who do this every day to keep us free- thank you. Way to be James Bearman
Melcher Family, Williamsburg OH.
10/15/2010 2:04:52 PM ET Can we bring back the tried and true P-51 Mustang? Best aircraft ever
NCO, East Coast
10/15/2010 1:15:35 PM ET Wow - finally. This is the best news I've read in some time. Imagine actually matching a capability with the threat especially if it's currently available easy to retrofit and operates at a fraction of the cost. Good job USAF for a change.
CP, Colo Spgs
10/15/2010 11:39:23 AM ET Wow, sign me up! Reminds me of the A-1 Skyraiders of Vietnam as well. And Robert is right... the T-28. What an exciting mission THAT would be.
TacAirlifter, Colorado Springs CO
10/15/2010 10:46:25 AM ET Definitely the wave of the future. Providing sustainable light attack will allow us to better support the army and conduct counterinsurgency. Light attack is an ideal close-air support platform in a permissive environment.
M Jarrett, GA
10/15/2010 9:28:27 AM ET Good to see the spirit of Nomad is coming back. All we need now is a updated Sandy (A-1 Skyraider). Also good to see us use the tools we have at hand and not spend more money for something we don't need. Keep up the good work.
Jonesy, Virginia
10/14/2010 5:17:22 PM ET Reminiscent of the T-28D trainer/attack conversion used during the Vietnam war.
