Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by janrinok on Wednesday June 27 2018, @08:15PM   Printer-friendly
from the RIP dept.

Submitted via IRC for Fnord666

Second pilot ejected and survived, and the crash is under investigation.

On June 22, an A-29 Super Tucano participating in the US Air Force's Light Attack Experiment (OA-X) program crashed while flying over the Red Rio Bombing Range—part of the White Sands Missile Range in New Mexico. US Navy Lt. Christopher Carey Short, from Canandaigua, New York, died in the crash. Another pilot ejected and suffered only minor injuries.

The Super Tucano, a joint entry into the OA-X program by Brazil's Embraer and Sierra Nevada Corporation, is one of two aircraft designs being tested as part of the second phase of OA-X by pilots attached to the Air Force's 49th Wing at Holloman Air Force Base. The goal of the testing is to determine whether the aircraft matches the Air Force's needs for flying close air support and reconnaissance missions for combat and counterinsurgency in "uncontested environments" (that is, operational areas where the enemy lacks air defenses). Such a niche is currently occupied by the A-10 and other more advanced aircraft.

The flight over the Red Rio range was one of multiple scenario test missions, including close air support, combat search and rescue, and "armed overwatch" (combat reconnaissance). Both the A-29 and the other aircraft being flown in the OA-X tests—the Textron Beechcraft AT-6 Wolverine—are turboprop aircraft based on similar versions of Pratt & Whitney's PT6A-68 engine.

[...] The cause of the crash is still under investigation, and no preliminary findings have been released. In a statement, an Embraer spokesperson said, "The SNC/Embraer team is fully cooperating with the USAF in its investigation. Additional information will be released as it becomes available."

Source: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2018/06/air-force-light-attack-test-aircraft-crashes-on-bomb-range-killing-pilot/

Related: Air Force Tests Two Turboprops as Potential A-10 "Replacements"


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by janrinok on Thursday June 28 2018, @06:37PM

    by janrinok (52) Subscriber Badge on Thursday June 28 2018, @06:37PM (#699927) Journal

    The guy said they needed a weapon that could strike a target within 20 meters of friendly troops.

    And where would anyone expect this target to be - hundreds of miles away from the site of the battle? Have you seen the battlefield that we expected to fight on? Have you seen the Fulda Gap, the German Plains, the steep sided valleys in Southern Europe? The Warsaw Pact vastly outnumbered the NATO forces and the best that we could hope for was to slow down the enemy advance to give diplomacy - political or nuclear - a time to work. The A-10 had a valuable role to play in that defence. It was able to operate close to our own ground forces and effectively counter one the advantages that the Warsaw Pact had - huge numbers of armoured vehicles. Without those vehicles the equally overwhelming number of ground troops would still be a problem but would become more manageable and vulnerable to other weapons. But the armoured vehicles came with their own tracked radars, missiles and gun defences. That was the environment that the A-10 had to survive in.

    The A-10 might have seen service in the Middle East and elsewhere but it was a key element of the NATO defence of Europe.

    The Super Tucano is not intended to fulfill that role. I understand that you might feel that the real reason is inter-service rivalry - it is the same in almost all forces. But I fear that you do your own military staff a great disservice by accusing them of procuring an aircraft that the fully hope will fail. The requirements for the aircraft are clearly specified in TFS:

    The goal of the testing is to determine whether the aircraft matches the Air Force's needs for flying close air support and reconnaissance missions for combat and counterinsurgency in "uncontested environments" (that is, operational areas where the enemy lacks air defenses).

    Now, if your army are going to be fighting often in that sort of environment then this aircraft might be good enough to do the job. If it is a far more hostile environment than another aircraft is needed. But by saving some money buying a much cheaper but faster aircraft (if that option is feasible) to fulfill some options you will have additional funds to buy another aircraft that will meet th e requirements of the more hostile environment too. If you go for the more expensive version for everything you will be spending more than you have to for fewer total airframes. Several European air forces already do this. It isn't a new idea, and it works. However, you do not invest all of your money in one type of aircraft. It is possible to get much more value for money by looking at alternative solutions.

    The idea of this program is to identify if the ST can fulfill that role - it is not a foregone conclusion.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2