{"id":16869,"date":"2018-02-20T21:48:33","date_gmt":"2018-02-20T21:48:33","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/one.sightlinemg.com\/airforcetimes\/uncategorized\/2018\/02\/20\/a-light-attack-aircraft-fleet-could-it-change-the-fight-or-put-lives-at-risk\/"},"modified":"2026-08-07T20:24:22","modified_gmt":"2026-08-07T20:24:22","slug":"a-light-attack-aircraft-fleet-could-it-change-the-fight-or-put-lives-at-risk","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/one.sightlinemg.com\/airforcetimes\/news\/your-air-force\/2018\/02\/20\/a-light-attack-aircraft-fleet-could-it-change-the-fight-or-put-lives-at-risk\/","title":{"rendered":"A light attack aircraft fleet: Could it change the fight or put lives at risk?"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

A new light attack aircraft<\/a> could provide the Air Force a cheaper, more cost-effective way of dealing with low-end threats \u2014 and free up its more advanced fighters to deal with more serious adversaries<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

But some critics fear that sending a slower, more lightly armored, propeller-driven plane into battle \u2014 even in relatively permissive environments \u2014 could put pilots at risk of being shot down or even killed.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

For years, the Air Force has used fighters such as the F-15, F-16, and the F-22, as well as the A-10 Warthog<\/a> and AC-130 gunship, to wage war against the Taliban, Islamic State, and other insurgent groups in Iraq and Afghanistan<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

But with none of those groups having any semblance of an air force, and with limited air defense capability at best, the Air Force has at times sent some of the most advanced fighters<\/a> in history up against targets that are way below their weight class.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

For example, last November, an F-22 helped strike a Taliban drug lab<\/a> in Afghanistan \u2014 and with the Raptor costing roughly $70,000 an hour to fly, some have questioned the cost-effectiveness of such missions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

It\u2019s like \u201cusing a Rolex to drive a nail,\u201d said Mark Gunzinger, a senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, and former deputy assistant secretary of defense for forces transformation and resources.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This is a particularly bad time for the Air Force\u2019s fourth- and fifth-generation fighters to be tied down in the desert, bombing ISIS fuel trucks or carrying out other counterterrorism-related missions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Tensions on the Korean Peninsula are higher than they\u2019ve been in decades, with North Korea\u2019s advancing nuclear capabilities stoking concern that America could be on the verge of war.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

And with European nations nervous about Russian aggression, the Air Force has been sending more aircraft to deter Russia and support allies as part of the European Reassurance Initiative.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

If things go wrong, the Air Force is going to need as many F-15s, F-16s and F-22s as possible to operate in highly contested environments.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

So, if the Air Force adds an OA-X light attack aircraft <\/a>to its inventory \u2014 it\u2019s now trying to decide between Textron Aviation\u2019s AT-6 Wolverine and the A-29 Super Tucano, which is built by Sierra Nevada Corporation and Embraer \u2014 it could have the flexibility to respond to those emergencies with its most advanced aircraft without leaving places like Iraq and Afghanistan unattended.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"
An AT-6 experimental aircraft is prepared for takeoff from Holloman Air Force Base. The AT-6 is participating in the Air Force’s Light Attack Experiment, a series of trials to determine the feasibility of using light aircraft in attack roles. (Ethan D. Wagner\/Air Force)<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Low-cost capability<\/b><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Top Air Force officials such as Gen. Mike Holmes, now head of Air Combat Command, have said that buying such an \u201coff-the-shelf\u201d airplane would provide a low-cost way to strike violent extremist groups, without the high costs of maintaining and operating the A-10 and fighters.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Lisa Disbrow, the former undersecretary of the Air Force, said a year ago that a light attack aircraft could conceivably \u201cfree up higher cost, higher performance platforms from doing low-threat missions, which would allow us time to prepare for more complex threats with those assets.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Gunzinger said that adding a light attack capability to the Air Force\u2019s suite of weapons systems makes sense for other reasons as well.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Having the Wolverine or Super Tucano in the inventory \u2014 especially with their low flight costs \u2014 would mean more cockpits that could be used to keep pilots current, allowing them to more quickly transition over to more advanced aircraft if necessary, Gunzinger said.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

A Wolverine or Super Tucano could also take on some of the close-air support missions that Warthogs now perform at much higher cost, wrote retired Lt. Col. Michael Buck last October in a paper on CAS<\/a> for the Air Force Association\u2019s Mitchell Institute for Aerospace Studies.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Super Tucano typically costs $1,000 per hour to fly, Buck said. That\u2019s less than 1\/20th what it costs to fly an F-16, and 1\/60th of the flying cost of an F-22, he said.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Having the OA-X provide close-air support and counterinsurgency support would also mean less wear and tear on the F-15, F-16 and F-22, Buck said.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This would free up those aircraft so pilots could spend more time training for combat in high-threat situations, he said.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

But some critics fear that the limitations of a light attack aircraft make it too risky to fly \u2014 even in more permissive environments such as the Middle East.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cThe idea of a developed world air arm operating these things is strange,\u201d said Richard Aboulafia, vice president of analysis for the Teal Group, an aerospace consulting firm. \u201cI don\u2019t think there\u2019s any other developed world air force that has, or would. The last time the U.S. did this in Vietnam, oh boy, it really wasn\u2019t pleasant. They took a lot of casualties, for predictable reasons. It\u2019s low, it\u2019s slow and vulnerable, and the air defense environment has become a lot more sophisticated.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Air Force and Navy lost 266 A-1 Skyraiders in combat during the Vietnam War, according to Aviation History magazine, a sister publication.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Today, the OA-X candidates fly lower and slower than the Air Force\u2019s fourth-gen fighters, as well as the A-10.<\/p>\n\n\n\t