AT-6 Weapons Question

Jschmus · April 30, 2011, 09:38:59 PM

I pulled the following image down off the Air Force website yesterday.

Apparently testing of the Hawker Beechcraft/Lockheed Martin (say that three times fast) AT-6C close air support aircraft is continuing. The photo shows one of the test aircraft loaded for combat, with other weapons on the floor. The two airmen in the foreground aren't helpful. On the right wing (left of shot) are what appear to be (L-R) one of those four-shot precision-kill FFAR pods, followed by either a Small Diameter bomb and a gun pod. On the one visible pylon of the other wing is a six-shot rocket pod. On the floor are two AIM-9X Sidewinders and the one I don't recognize. Any ideas? Thanks for looking.

Cybermax · April 30, 2011, 10:14:14 PM

It looks like a Raytheon Griffin. http://azstarnet.com/business/local/article_ff437ef6-c69d-56c6-aeff-e74d0d5902b9.html

icchan · May 01, 2011, 03:52:22 AM

What is that on the belly, a laser rig?

Maverick · May 01, 2011, 06:11:34 AM

Looks like a FLIR ball to me. Funnily enough, I'd thought of a Co-In Tucano back in the day and included that self-same feature.

Regards,

Mav

GTX · May 01, 2011, 12:24:39 PM

Quote from: Cybermax on April 30, 2011, 10:14:14 PM
It looks like a Raytheon Griffin. http://azstarnet.com/business/local/article_ff437ef6-c69d-56c6-aeff-e74d0d5902b9.html

I believe you are correct. Here are some more pictures:

regards,

Greg

GTX · May 01, 2011, 12:36:56 PM

Quote from: Maverick on May 01, 2011, 06:11:34 AM
Looks like a FLIR ball to me.

Yep, definitely a FLIR/EO/designator turret (specifically a L-3 Wescam MX-15Di) - here's some other pics which show it better:

Regards,

Greg

rickshaw · May 01, 2011, 04:41:32 PM

Quote from: GTX on May 01, 2011, 12:36:56 PM

"Fill 'er up and check the oil will ya?"

Jschmus · May 01, 2011, 05:54:37 PM

Thanks, gents! Looks like they're dragging out all the bells and whistles, odd for something they don't plan on using directly in combat.

icchan · May 02, 2011, 07:16:29 AM

Makes an excellent export bird though. Something to compete with the Pucara, "simpler, smaller, less expensive, and better" perhaps.

Maverick · May 02, 2011, 07:30:47 AM

Counter-Insurgency (I assume that's the predicted role?) missions are quite risky to fly. Some might even say that a small single-engined turbo-prop aircraft isn't a good choice (eg: too vulnerable) whilst others will say it's perfect for the job. It seems obvious to have the thing with comprehensive avionics / EO systems and cutting-edge weapons given the nature of the mission.

Regards,

Mav

rickshaw · May 02, 2011, 07:40:23 AM

Perhaps better really nowadays to do it with a UCAV. You can have one of those for about the same cost as the AT-6 and it will carry the same load and not risk a pilot's life. I think a UCAV doing the spotting and very big plane like a 747 or similar, carrying a honking big load of laser guided bombs and/or missiles would be a very good hunter-killer combination for COIN work.

Maverick · May 02, 2011, 04:14:45 PM

Me, I'd rather have a human being there giving close air support rather than some wannabe sitting in a donger nowhere near the front line. They might actually be invested in the battle below rather than thinking it's a glorious game.

As for the Jumbo in support, one would hope the bad guys weren't equipped with MANPADS otherwise it's not just one pilot but a whole crew...

Regards,

Mav

rickshaw · May 02, 2011, 06:47:58 PM

MANPADS have limited range - usually up to about 5,000 metres (think of a hemisphere about 5,000 metres in radius). As I'd visualise the 747 or whatever circling at about 30,000 feet, its well outside the vertical range of a MANPADS (and if you figure in problems with speed, etc, even if it flew down within the maximum slant range, the missile would run out of puff before it could engage a 747 flying at 400+ mph). MANPADS are quite limited in their ability to engage attacking aircraft and act more as a deterrent than anything else. Its now recognised even in the supposed hey-day of the MANPADS against the Soviets in Afghanistan, most missiles that were fired missed because of misjudgement of the range requirements. What they have done is force the attacking aircraft up to medium altitude and a greater investment as a consequence in SEAD assets.

rallymodeller · May 02, 2011, 07:56:43 PM

The limited range of MANPADS will change. Furthermore, there are conventional SAMs that can hit at further than the range at which such a "bomb truck" can hit back; take a look at the most recent developments coming out of Russia. Won't take long until those weapons are in the hands of sufficiently-funded insurgent groups.

If there is one constant in warfare it is that developments always continue.

Maverick · May 02, 2011, 08:03:24 PM

Okies, but what will the 747 be dropping? (eg LGBs or ASMs) Will they be able to be designated by the UCAV or GPS guided? Will they have the accuracy to be able to take out say 3 or 4 insurgents without collateral damage? Will the cost of such a PGM be worth taking out said insurgents?

Recent years tends to suggest that using PGMs within the Co-In warzone leads to collateral damage with resultant ill will by the civilan population.

Regards,

Mav