Comments on: Insurgents Offer Tough Air Critique

By: Musket 104

Musket 104 — Wed, 24 Feb 2010 13:52:40 +0000

Boyd has made very useful contributions. The issue is, you may start out with a light agile fighter, but someone is going to want to hang all kinds of air-ground ordnance on it. It happened with the The F-15 (anyone remember “not a pound for air to ground) back in the day?) and the F-16. Compare a Block 10 with the latest Block 60. I bet the plane handles like a wheelbarrow wioth all that stuff hanging on it.

We can no longer afford the luxury of a dedicated air-to-air fighter. People HAVE to get used to the idea of a flexible multi-role platform the WILL gain weight and change missions over it’s lifetime.

For the life of me, I do not see why the AF is buying the little wing F-35 rather than the large winged navy variant.

By: hmm

hmm — Tue, 28 Jul 2009 04:55:07 +0000

Heather has a good point. It seems that a lot of trouble comes from seriously outdated threat assessments. Probably unavoidable given the time to develop and train complex systems, but perhaps some thought on better ways to hedge or reduce leadup would pay dividends.

By: Heather

Heather — Fri, 24 Apr 2009 00:04:38 +0000

I didn’t read all the comments, but I have met Col. Dilger (see pfcem’s comment), and he is certainly no senile old man.

I read a Rand article that talked about the need for airplanes right now to be primarily about training. The Air Force believes that they must have pilots in key positions, and hence the need for the F-22. If this is the case, then Dilger and Sprey are right. Let’s build something cheaper to achieve this goal. I didn’t get the impression that Dilger was anti-technology, he’s just not in love with it. It isn’t a panacea. He advocated skunk works in the 2 hours I listened to him talk, but just didn’t think you should go building something on a ten or twenty year threat assessment (which couldn’t help but be wrong). That money would be better spent on research into air frames, etc., so you could scale fast when a threat actually materialized.

From my perspective, I also don’t get the anti-Boyd stuff. I am going to label it Boyd-deranagement syndrome because too many commenters have just noted Sprey’s proximity to Boyd to attack his ideas. Seems to me the only branch of the US military that is operating on all cylinders are the marines. Boyd had a lot to do with that, didn’t he?

I just keep thinking about my old phone that will work when the power goes out as opposed to the new, fancy expensive ones that won’t work. I love that old phone. Isn’t their a parallel here?

By: erniec114

erniec114 — Wed, 18 Mar 2009 06:51:03 +0000

Not only that Beekman, but he also left out that the USAF’s bomber fleet in Kosovo, Iraq, and Afghanistan dropped way more bombs than all those fighters did combined. (I think the B-1 alone dropped something like 60% of munitions but only flew 6% of the sorties in Kosovo) Last I heard bombers were one of the prefered CAS platforms because of their time and ammount of bombs

By: Beekman

Beekman — Thu, 12 Mar 2009 21:31:41 +0000

I notcied the War in the Pacific and the fire bombing of Japan was left out of the article! hmm!

By: ronjohn928

ronjohn928 — Thu, 12 Mar 2009 21:01:54 +0000

Hank-Cost, I was thinking the same thing as you regarding the 10,000 fighters. Think of all of the new air bases we would need (more than those closed by the BRACS), new runways, hangers, new schools and more teachers for the bases, not to mention the difficulty of finding real estate for all of the bases and fighting the lawsuits of the local communities not wanting such noisy neighbors. Also, where would we find the air space in which to train the 40,000+ pilots needed for 10,000 fighters. And do they really think Congress would buy $10,000 fighters no matter how cheap? It’s more likely they would say 2000 is plenty and use the money “saved” on other pet projects.

Many of the comments have focused on ground support aircraft as if that is all we would need. As a fomer Marine grunt I love the A-10 and its long loiter time and powerful weapons, but without F-22s to achieve and maintain air supremacy, there wouldn’t be any A-10s in the air for very long!

By: Lorne

Lorne — Sun, 08 Mar 2009 18:40:37 +0000

These two are right.

Quantity has a quality all its own!

By: Ramjet

Ramjet — Sat, 07 Mar 2009 22:14:07 +0000

Yup, I kinda like gotarmadillo's tongue-in-cheek (I hope) comments about the bicycle corps. This is off topic but does illustrate a problem with fielding large numbers of manned anything. The bicycle corps would be great if American youth were in the same place they were in 1917, when the recruiting offices were swamped by all segments of our society, doctors, lawyers, Indian chiefs. The sons of wealth and prestige took up the most dangerous of combat jobs in those days. This was again seen in WWII among Hollywoods top stars and sports figures. Today we must promise a college education, lifetime health care, help to buy a home, and pay comparable to main street. This sense of entitlement has destroyed our country and its institutions including the military. My point is that you couldn't get enough people to enlist to ride a bicycle, much less walk 20 clicks. The guys who do are in a tiny minority who hae been reduced to anachronistic myth and legend. Forget American "boots on the ground". God bless those few, but they ARE few. Now back to aircraft...We built about 16,000 B-17's each with a crew of 10. We lost as many as 60 on some missions (Schweinfurt II, 14 Oct 43 and Berlin (4-6 March 44). What would happen today to any commander who lost 600 aircrew on a single mission? Where would we get replacements? There are few options to great/too much reliance on technology. When our sons/brothers/fathers are not at risk, then support for our missions is diminished. When we need only to launch a cruise missile with no American in harm's way, we concede the moral high ground. That's the danger of fielding a techno-centric force. It's the seed from which assymetric warfare springs. The enemy's inability to match us technically, limits him to low-tech, people-centric warfare. While we seek to protect life at all cost, he sacrifices life accomplish his aims. This is highly economical. We cannot and should not attempt to play by his rules or methods. But...we should try to kill as many killers as we can at the lowest cost. The number we kill is more important than the ratio of ours to theirs. That's not to say that we should die wastfully or foolishly. The point is that, though we may kill at a ratio of 1000 enemy to our one loss, if we only kill 1000, we lose. We must be prepared to engage often and and in great numbers. And, though making our best effort to keep our casualties low, we must be willing to accept some losses and resist the fear of risk that today grips our leaders. In order to reach the required ratios, means we must employ the aerial equi_alent of "boots on the ground". Carpet bombing is paleolithic, inhumane and enemical to our cause and beliefs. We must saddle up in swarms of small, agile, and lethal craft with unmanned ISR platforms loitering in the target area pointing out targets to attack. The ISR will be both manned and unmanned. The manned platforms to search out new targets in a highly dynamic mode, while unmanned platforms maintain track of and illuminate both predesignated targets and those up-linked by manned ISR, attack aircraft, and follow-on ground elements. Unmanned Combat Aircraft will augment the force with persistent and precise strike capability as they loiter at higher altitudes. These small but lethal craft will be crewed by no more than 2. Their range and endurance might be limited, but their ability to operate from austere forward fields, collocated with the supported ground units will allow them to R&R at hasty FARPS and re-engage in round-robin fashion, allowing continous CAS. Their small silhouette, modern ballistic protection, agility, acoustic and electronic stealth as well as their great numbers will reduce losses. Their ability to get in close and use lighter, yet lethal weapons will get results that hasn't been seen since 9th Tactical Air Command's P-47's shielded Patton's right flank in 1944. Yes, Col. Canyon, you can still wear your white scarf.

By: gotarmadillo

gotarmadillo — Sat, 07 Mar 2009 20:06:11 +0000

Some good points, but I think the history IS a little warped; the Germans wouldn’t have defended so staunchly Schweinfurt if they could have made ball bearings anyplace else, right?
However, we’re not going to fight China-all they have to do, is sell off all our treasury tht they’re holding, and the next “stimuls” package will be taking all our Ospreys to Fuji’s Pawn Shop.
It’s ridiculous to spend money on F-22s, F-35s, F-33&1/3s, to fight an enemy without a single aircraft.
Plus, all the Ospreys in the world aren’t going to land whole divisions in Russia or China, or anywhere else:they’re too expensive and they are gas guzzlers.
e’d ll like to buy a new car, but when you cant afford it you just make do. And when the bomb costs more than the target it destroys, I can’t see anybody winning, and that’s before we even put nuclear ICBMs into the equation.
EPA wouldn’t like that, and neither would anybody else.
If there is any contiuum to warfare at all, it’s that it’s gotten too expensive and too destructive to fight, ful tilt, so, it’s all brush fire, proxy wars for the forseeable future.
As far as figthing for dwindling resources, I agree that we’re headed for a global calamity. But, we don’t have the oil. And colonizing the Middle East isn’t going to happen, not after the rise of Arab natioanlism in the inter war period.
Cold War, WW2 thought is just going to add lead to the sinking econmies of the world and bring on that calamity a lot faster.
Persoanlly, I think, if we really want to fight terrorism, re-institue the old bicycle corps.
Fast, silent, no fuel or depot level maintaince required. won’t work everywhere, but where it does„„,think about it.

By: Ramjet

Ramjet — Sat, 07 Mar 2009 17:51:27 +0000

I flew 3000 hour of ISR in Iraq during the last 5 years in a C-337 (0-2). My sensor operator, a retired AF SMsgt and I often commented on the increasing mismatch of USAF tactical aircraft/crews/training and the missions to which they're assigned. Airlift was superb, as always. A-10's, F-16's/15's were employed to good effect in the earliest phase of combat, the first couple of months or so. Later, and for the last 3-4 years, the F-16's were relegated largely to ISR of MSR's. Most of the others were either on strip alert, or CAP. Fighters could be heard at night around troubled urban areas and bases performing missions we called, "Decibels for Dollars" or "Dialing for Air Medals". The tankers were always on stations burning additional JP and airframe hours. These dedicated, disciplined and well-trained professionals merit something better. The AF's tactical aircraft that was best-suited to it's mission was the AC-130. With it's range, endurance and suite of accurate weapons, it required no tanker, yet could often remain on-scene with the supported ground units throughout the op. Still, the Spectre gunships were not based where they could respond as rapidly as was often required. I'm sure there were good reasons for this, such as maintenance requirements, security, etc. These factors tend to support Dilger & Sprey's contentions. The best close air support, by far, was by US Army H-58 Kiowa Warriors. Their units assigned people to watch the imagery feed 24/7 as well as maintaining crews on strip alert to respond within minutes. On a number of occasions, they could see our laser "sparkling" a "subject" as soon as they lifted just high enough for line-of-sight to clear the tents or buildings. Now, the H-58 can't carry a lot of ordnance or fuel, but they're packing Hellfire PGM in addition to 2.75 FFAR. and can rotate with a second/third flight if required. The Kiowas are always ready, always on frequency with both ISR and ground elements, and always nearby. The airframe is one of the least costly in the US Military inentory and is basically an optioned-up Bell JetRanger. During my 5 years of flying in Iraq, I saw the Kiowa Warriors deal more death to the enemy with fewer non-combatant casualties than any other aircraft. My opinion is probably biased to some degree, being a former Bird Dog pilot in SEA and an armed Skymaster pilot with the Rhodesian AF. My father, who flew P-47's in the ETO, P-51's in Korea and F-4's in SEA, got a lot of laughs out of our discussions comparing his $3.5 million fighter-bomber with my $34K Bird Dog. My Bird Dog Company (1 of 2) in the Mekong Delta killed far more enemy (by some forgotten order of magnitude) with our eight 2.75's than his squadron of Phantoms did in air-to-air and air-to-ground combined. But for the SOW's, the USAF has gradually forfeited their CAS role by default to the Army and others. Think about this. The Coast Guard, starting with HITRON 9 has assumed a maritime CAS role...using armed aircraft to support surface units in their homeland security role. Logically, as pirate fighters, they should be embarked on USN ships just as their LEDETS are for decades now. Yes, Roger Hohle, I remember the Rutan ARES. When I was flying HU-25's with the Coast Guard, I was tasked to inestigate the ARES as an air interdiction aircraft. The file is still in my desk drawer. Beyond it's outstanding turn rate and return to target abilities, the 25mm gun that the know-it-alls said couldn't possibly be compatible with such a light airframe...well, let's just say they're still wiping egg from their faces. The ARES was designed with to add a second crewmember and some undedicated space for ...sensors? I'm not against the F-22/35. We must maintain an air dominance edge o-er future ad-ersaries. The point is that we need adequate numbers of manned CAS/ISR platforms. If I had to choose between manned CAS and manned ISR, I'd choose ISR. The MQ-9 Reaper and soon the Sky Warrior will be capable of precision attack and persistent sureillance. In my humble opinion, manned ISR still has the edge in the detection and situational awareness piece of ISR. Predators are great for flying a designated track for a long time and keeping an eye on a pre-determined area or subject/target to which it has been cued or has detected within the field of its sensor(s). Our unit's 20 years of ISR on 5 continents has taught us that the pilot is an important player in cueing the sensor operator when subjects of interest fall outside the soda straw field of the sensors, especially when tasked with a highly specific search area, route or sureillance point or target. The human interaction between and among the pilot, sensor operator, ground elements, other aircraft and contolling agencies is constitutes an operational synergy that is as difficult for flyers to articulate as it is for non-flyers to fully appreciate. I am neither a proponent nor a detractor of the paper/philosophy/agenda of Dilger & Sprey. Yet, the number of comments their article drew from readers has made many of us think and, hopefully, take a fresh look at what can/should be done to ensure that we're as ready for future contingencies as we can be, within realistic economic and technological constraints.

By: SSG R

SSG R — Sat, 07 Mar 2009 04:12:01 +0000

I think what needs to be pulled from this article is just how retarded the AF is. I know there's some argument over the accuracy of the article, but just because they don't include much of the success of the AF (which there isn't really that much) doesn't take away from the stats they did report. Anyone remember a UH-60 Blackhawk being shot down because the AF thought it was a Hind? I think what this article should have said was they want their aircraft for the future and they want them to go to the other services that do more than mail delivery. The AF should just be absorbed into the other services so it can be more effective (both in cost and mission). Only problem with that is no other service would want to, hell, the Army kicked them out. I know there’s waste in other services, just look at the Armys' Comanche and LUH, the Marines Osprey. Then look and the AF and their failed attempt at the CSAR-X; one of the few things the AF has that’s worth a crap and they don't even seem to want to support it (PJs). What I get form this article is someone did the work to show that the AF doesn't even want to learn from history. In fact, they want to ignore it, they want to get the fancy expensive toys and don't care about who they support, the warfighter. Bombing alone has never and will never when a war, in fact it will probably make it worse. To add to that, in todays fights against insurgency more troop are needed on the ground and with that more support is needed from the air, and the AF doesn't fit the bill. So all of you retired AF that want to complain that this article doesn't praise the AF look back and ask what has the AF done well THAT IT WASN'T FORCED TO DO.

By: Sgt JFK

Sgt JFK — Fri, 06 Mar 2009 15:42:44 +0000

“World War II P-38 and P-51 fighter aircraft come to mind. Just update them, maybe even a dual minigun on the P-38. Really, just update their airframe and equipment.”

We already have an outstanding airframe with the A-10. Just give them some more powerful engines and you have the perfect ground support aircraft.

By: OUTLANDER

OUTLANDER — Fri, 06 Mar 2009 10:06:58 +0000

World War II P-38 and P-51 fighter aircraft come to mind. Just update them, maybe even a dual minigun on the P-38. Really, just update their airframe and equipment.

By: John Haddick

John Haddick — Fri, 06 Mar 2009 00:18:40 +0000

Quite a number of very articulate proposals concerning the tactical use of various airframes-weapons systems. Each lacks a core motivator, the profit margin available to the very limited providers, those defense contractors whose staffs and planning groups soak up so much of the funded bucks. An F-35 with all its mysterious "innards" can have a marvelously high "design" cost that provides huge profit with minimal production equipment or building material. It's the "idea" that costs and as the models operational life is extended when maintenance begins to bring about some accountability for performance THEN new types are "sold" to "win the future." This neglect of winning "today" is based on the false assumption that America is so needed the world would never see it destroyed, much like AIG gets to come to the trough on nothing but fear of its going, not anything that it does well.

By: Roger Hohle

Roger Hohle — Thu, 05 Mar 2009 23:04:58 +0000

Doesn’t anyone remember the Burt Rutan designed ARES? A very lost cost, close air support designed plane that delivers HUGE punch for a few bucks a copy. Now is the time for the US to develop a mud fighter.

By: Hank-Cost Est.

Hank-Cost Est. — Thu, 05 Mar 2009 22:42:49 +0000

This effectiveness-based program delivers, not 2,000 antiquated [?? You mean there won’t be any Mods/Updates??? – Since when?] , bombing-oriented relics, but a balanced force of 10,000 all-new fighters, airlifters, tankers, close support and forward controller aircraft—all within the current spending levels of $.25 trillion over 20 years. Such a force could actually deliver–right at the outset of any future conflict–devastating close support for the troops, guaranteed by crushing air superiority. And that would be a first in US air history.
Nice Theoretical Report, but it falls grossly short of an honest and complete ESTIMATE of the TRUE COST. For example, how about the cost of Recruiting, Training, and Maintaining 8,000 additional Pilots, plus the necessary support personnel for Training (both pilots and aircraft mechanics, etc.) Maintenance, Spares Support/Provisioning all complicated because you’re going from two very capability aircraft to several and the associated facilities and storage space. On the low side, 10 to 1, so that’s another 80,000 personnel that will need to be recruited, trained, housed, etc. Still sounds cheaper? All due respect, I hope these two guys aren’t running around loose.

By: Oldpilot

Oldpilot — Thu, 05 Mar 2009 22:40:01 +0000

These men just wanted to see their name in print. We will probably never fight a conventional war again but if we do we will need air superiority weapons (F-22, F35). Even with the Low Intensity Warefare we are now fighting the perfect aircraft are already here, the predator and reaper. They observe and then attack small groups of combatants. They need follow on, higher capablity replacements which are flying now. They need the air superiority already mentioned but there are designs that may be able to do that unmanned also. They are the most requested asset in the middle east to protect ground troops and seek out insurgent groups. They are relatively inexpensive and very hard to defend against. Besides, if one is lost, there is no casualty. That is great.

By: mike j

mike j — Thu, 05 Mar 2009 22:18:53 +0000

Response to… well, many posts back “Do AESA radars emit the same…” from Jim, Cole, Trophy:

AESA is an electronically as opposed to mechanically scanned array, where the transmit/ receive modules are individually powered. Because it is electronic, it has a very high scan rate, and is therefore difficult to intercept, hence Low Probability of Intercept. You can also vary aspects of the signal to further confuse the situation. But it does emit– it has to throw out enough energy to bounce signal off a target many miles distant.

Realistically, I don’t know if an adversary can reliably exploit this fact to kill the emitter. It may at very least give them early warning.

My question is, does every single tactical aircraft we have need one? (It’s a rhetorical question, cause I think NOT.)

So if every tactical aircraft DOES NOT need every high tech gizmo, you might be able to afford more aircraft. More aircraft = more aim points = more targets hit in a shorter time span. War = Chaos. More chaos generated by us on the enemy, is good for our side.

That’s one of the main points of the article, that I think most here missed, judging by the response.

By: carl

carl — Thu, 05 Mar 2009 21:58:09 +0000

During 1991, not one SCUD mobile transporter-erector-launcher was confirmed destroyed by any airplanes, A-10 or others. Perhaps they meant fixed launch sites, which were immaterial; the threat to Israel and our guys came from the mobile TELs, which we couldn’t effectively counter.

Arguments depending of distortions of historical fact are highly suspect in my mind.

By: aaronjolley

aaronjolley — Thu, 05 Mar 2009 20:30:15 +0000

“Reversing the Decay”? According to these guys we never had any airpower to decay. According to them, we’ve had it all backwards since WW2, so I guess we should go back to bi-planes? Yeah, that would be more affordable all right.

These guys aren’t making much sense. ooooo! carpet bombing is ineffective and deadly, yeah, that’s why we don’t do it anymore. What a revelation these guys have made! There is obviously an agenda behind what they are promoting, here, but I’m not so sure what it is.