Home » Air » AF Mulls COIN Wing, New Planes

AF Mulls COIN Wing, New Planes

By Colin Clark Friday, April 24th, 2009 5:04 pm
Posted in Air, Policy

The Air Force has been very sensitive about its image over the last eight years of fighting, concerned the country did not appreciate its role in the several wars we are waging.

As part of his effort to make the Air Force a bigger joint player and ensure the service can play an important part in this age of hybrid warfare, Gen. Norton Schwartz, is considering the need for a light propeller driven aircraft for a strike role, similar to aircraft used against the Viet Cong during the Vietnam War.

“There is a legitimate need to talk about the light strike role and the building partner capacity role, and we certainly intend to have that discussion in the coming months,” the Air Force Chief of Staff said at the Brookings Institution today. Schwartz said the Air Force would consider this and the development of a counter-insurgency or irregular warfare wing in June.

Schwartz added that the best approach might be to make the primary trainer aircraft something that “could be easily reconfigured into a light strike platform.”

The Hawker Beechcraft T-6 is the Air Force’s current primary trainer aircraft. Its maker has proposed a modified plane with machine guns and the ability to carry a variety of PGMs so it would seem a natural candidate for this role.

Schwartz said such a plane might be deployed as part of the counter-insurgency wing. To ensure the service gets the most from both its personnel and its equipment, the instructors “could sort of make that transition quickly to a building partner capacity role in the same airplane, and the same crew, and perhaps folks who we have arranged to have language skills that’s a part of their repertoire — that is a very attractive way to solve this problem,” Schwartz said.

Join the Conversation

	John April 24th, 2009 at 5:36 pm The Air Force is finally starting to catch up with the times.
	Zach April 24th, 2009 at 9:00 pm Can someone tell me how using a propeller aircraft in the 21st century is a good idea? Shouldn’t we be about ditching jet engines and researching into newer and better forms of propulsion? Instead of going back in time? Would propellers even work in sandy (and hot) environments in the middle east? Wouldn’t sand easily build up and block the propeller from spinning? And I’m sure a propeller aircraft could easily be shot down… adding another risk for pilots… and a challenge for people to go out and rescue the pilot.
	pfcem April 24th, 2009 at 9:41 pm While the basic idea of a “counter-insurgency wing” is a good one, call it what it is — a low-intensity (i.e. no counter-air threat environment) close support aircraft — not a “strike role” aircraft. And don’t be so moronic as to REPLACE/CONVERT existing fighter wings with/into “counter-insurgency wings”.
	Mark April 24th, 2009 at 10:30 pm Calling all SPAD drivers…we are going to re-invent the A1…how about some T-28s and B26s?? John, this ain’t new. Zach…“Would propellers even work in sandy…sand build up and block the prop”…you’re baggin me, right? How about a new aircraft for the AC130 “SPECTRE” guys”?…pretty precise, has range and loiter time, and does kick ass work. Just a thought.
	tipover April 24th, 2009 at 11:02 pm Do they plan to use a titanium tub and redundant systems? There is a reason the Warthog does its job so well. Those trainers would have to maintain the same high altitudes the F-16’s and other fighters unless no one is shooting back. Even the AC-130 has to fly high and at night to keep from being shot down. Same for drones. Right idea, wrong platform for CAS unless they figure zero resistance.
	John April 25th, 2009 at 12:00 am John, this ain’t new. ______________________ I never said it was Mark…tone it down a notch. Anyways, looks like the Air Force is looking to mirror the U.S. Navy’s Irregular Warfare office. Navy is currently testing the Super Tucano which is well suited to this type of fight. Anyways, looks like the Air Force is looking to mirror the U.S. Navy’s Irregular Warfare office. Navy Irregular Warfare has been testing Super Tucanowhich the Columbians and Brazilians are using.
	Tim April 25th, 2009 at 7:21 am Why not call it what it is LST –Low Slow Target. Need something for the pilots to fly when the JSF is late heavy and overcost which will preclude replacing the A10. A10’s wont last 50 years like a B-52 or KC-135.
	John April 25th, 2009 at 7:45 am The Air Force should pick up the Super Tucano from the Navy since it isn’t a marinized aircraft. Capt. Mark Mullins, a naval special warfare officer serving as the deputy director of the Navy Irregular Warfare Office at the Pentagon says of the Super Tucano,“This is a close air support, manned aircraft with a pilot and sensor operator. The idea here is that SOF needs an organic capability that can stick with them while they’re doing their mission…It’s not about flying in from 1,000 miles away, dropping some thousand-pound bombs and leaving,” Mullins said. “It’s about working with [the ground force], doing the intelligence preparation of the battlespace, doing a [communication] relay, close air support, eyes on target and if there’s squirters leaving the target, keeping up with them and tracking them down and doing [bomb damage assessment] at the end.”
	andrew April 25th, 2009 at 8:48 am What about the A-10?
	Colin Clark April 25th, 2009 at 10:28 am Andrew, They are looking for a plane with long loiter time and the slow speed of a prop plane. The A-10 is fabulous but doesn’t quite hit the parameters for the COIN mission.
	RFL April 25th, 2009 at 10:49 am ANd could you tell me why we are staying in Afghanistan? And where we are doing this again with a long durative occupation roel?
	RFL April 25th, 2009 at 10:50 am Occupation is not the core focus of US forces; literally, where are we doing this again and why?
	Aurora April 25th, 2009 at 1:27 pm Tim: “Why not call it what it is LST –Low Slow Target.“ I couldn’t agree more. Great way to put aircrew’s lives at risk.
	Stephen April 25th, 2009 at 2:06 pm Who says it has to be low? It’s about doing the job F-16’s, F/A18’s, and F15E’s do, although they do it at a much higher cost. Buy a wing for COIN, mothball’em after the war’s over while getting the legacy combat aircraft back on track for service life expectations (slow down their current useage.) They could easily take the man out of the cockpit here but that would increase the cost. The greatest benefit is more ordinance capability than Reaper. Just gotta use BR-1AN to work out the kinks. That comment about props working in the desert is hilarious. What the hell you think they were using before jets came around? Jet engines suffer from the same wear and tear from sand and dust that props do only it costs a helluva lot more to tear down a jet and replace parts than a turboprop.
	John April 25th, 2009 at 2:45 pm Air Force bias against anything that doesn’t have a jet engine and stealth.
	STEVE April 25th, 2009 at 4:43 pm FOLKS: As usual, it would really help if you would carefully read the lead article before you start coming up with the inane comments. The main gist of the article is to develop a plane that is inexpensive, not so difficult to maintain, and can be turned over for OPS and maintenance by the host country. After all they will be needing some sort of COIN air capability after we leave the area — unless of course you would like to leave several wings of US aircraft and Helos behind — for however long it takes. Is this scheme workable… who knows? But we’ve got to come up with something before we do a major draw down in either Iraq or AfPak.
	Zach April 25th, 2009 at 4:51 pm @ Mark and Stephen, Apparently you don’t know how to read English… I asked IF propellers would work in a desert environment.… never once said they wouldn’t work… but thanks for NOT answering the question and resorting to childish insults showing how mature you are (or lack of).
	Mark April 25th, 2009 at 8:26 pm Zach/John, am a 30 vet…assumed the audience of DOD BUZZ were of similar background.…didn’t expect such sensitivity…That said, If my tone offends you. Don’t read the words. Zach, I hable pretty well…No offense…you’re obviously not an aviator.…..my memory of the C130s operating in SWA (Al’s Garage…PSAB for you FNGs)they had no problems. The US has been operating prop a/c all over the planet for a long time…the USAAF successfully operated prop a/c all over North Africa and the Middle East when FDR was POTUS. Questions?. My only point on COIN was: for those of us that have been involved in the DOD aviation business for a while, some of the “new ideas” coming out of the AF leadership are interesting…NOT new…done before Norty was a doolie. Doesn’t mean the ideas are wrong…but not new. Over.
	Hah April 25th, 2009 at 8:55 pm Curious — why aren’t there any single-propeller aircraft with a mounted gun similar to a helicopter? Being able to loiter over an area with the speed of a prop would be pretty strong, no?
	Zach April 25th, 2009 at 9:41 pm Thanks for the answer Mark, :) But what about survivability? Since a propeller aircraft is slower… and they want to use this new plane for close-range-low-flybys, couldn’t the Taliban easily take their AK’s and do some dmg to the plane?
	Mark April 25th, 2009 at 11:42 pm Hah & Zak, MANPADs (lots of these things around from Taliban to Hezbollah to the FARC etc) are a problem when your knots are below 400IAS and you AGL is, nominally, below 12K. Radar directed or even 9Level gunner aimed AAA is a problem at CAS altitudes at low a/s (which is why AC130s/helo gunships must be professionally employed…kind of explains why the AF has spent the big bucks for fast movers??? Slower aircraft can operate in MANPAD/AAA environments when employed in a combined arms approach which implies a certain level of operational sophistication. Again, none of this is new to folks that do this for a living.…so, when some of these bromides are “nominated” as “new approaches”, some of us are a bit cautious.
	mark April 26th, 2009 at 2:15 am super tacano is the best aircraft in the world for this mission.extremly long flight time and very heavy weapons load .the fast jets just simply cant get the time firing at the ground as these can ‚they are much too quick.they are cost effective also unlike the a10 which require s many hours of maitenance for every hour it flies.if you were to get hold of flight costs per hour for the jets you would see the difference in that one point.they are not to slow to be able to get out of trouble as some sugest ‚flying around 400 mph when needed .do some research on the super tacano and you will be very impressed
	mark s April 26th, 2009 at 2:17 am im a different mark than the one above me ‚sorry mark ill change my name
	mark s April 26th, 2009 at 2:34 am another couple of points to consider are these.they cost 5.5 million each ‚they can take off from roads or rough strips giving true real time close air support.they have heads up display helmets and 4th generation avionics .with costs like that we could give the troops on the ground many assets at close by strips ‚instead of flying from the large airbases many miles away .ac130 s are exellent but we dont have enough and there very expensive.sometimes simple is good
	Mark April 26th, 2009 at 9:49 am mark, I am neither pro or con on your EMB 314 super tucano. I was merely pointing out the potential combat envionment that today’s aircraft will face. That said: The performance info on the web for this a/c has it’s top speed as 320Kts/368mph…I expect this a/c can achieve 320kts without an ordnance load…I suspect the combat loaded airspeed of the a/c would less than 320kst and make it vulnerable to MANPADs/AAA. There are a many GIs with a large amount of “hands-on, been-there-done-that experience.…Reference the US experience in Viet Nam. So, I expect that the super tucano is a good a/c but there are good reasons why the A10 was designed and built and why the AF chose the multi-role/mission F16.…we did buy A1/T28s to train and equip the Vietnamese, the Thais, etc…the Super Tacano might be the right a/c for that idea…but if you regularly employ a 200-230kt a/c unsupported in a heavy MANPAD/AAA environment, then you best have a robust procurement & pilot training pipeline. Over
	Stephen April 26th, 2009 at 1:27 pm With a little bit of tweaking, Tucanos or T-6’s could/will be set up to carry PGM’s. One in FAC role w/ LASER spotter, linked to shooters. PGM’s are launched at altitude above manpad range. One wouldn’t mount a gun on this because to use the gun, you put yourself in their range. Additonally, the weight of the gun and ammo means less fuel and or PGM’s, which is what you’re wanting to get on target anyway. Having a lightweight airframe w/ a prop doesn’t mean ya gotta be down in the weeds. Just because were looking backwards doesn’t mean we have to be think backwards.
	mark s April 26th, 2009 at 3:00 pm i agree with you mark ‚but im really not sure afghanistan has a big aaa threat there were reports recently of a couple of trucks carrying russian aaa being destroyed ‚but thats the only ones ive heard of.im sure there are manpads around but again there are not to many reports on them being used (our chinooks would be in trouble ).i know that in vietnam those problem were much more widespread and easily hidden .also for training an indigenous airforce what could be better than a single engine aircraft.
	Mark April 26th, 2009 at 10:37 pm Stephen, Good points…just buy a truck, stay above the threat and pound ‘em with pgms. Of course, that means that your third world guy is gonna have to get equiped and trained up to some Gringo C4ISR standards…not impossible but in inconsequential.
	Trophy April 26th, 2009 at 10:54 pm Doesn’t the Super Tucano have a 3,300-lbs load? I’m not talking about payload, as I’m sure that weight load figure is for pilot, fuel, and munitions. If that’s the case, at least the GBU-39 250-lbs SDB’s are underway.
	egp292 April 27th, 2009 at 9:48 am Bring back the OV-10’s.
	Sgt JFK April 27th, 2009 at 9:58 am UUhhmm. I think the A-10 has this mission covered well. How about some new airframes?
	hess April 27th, 2009 at 11:24 am I say this is a good idea… (just wrong platform! These Low cost… higher numbers.. more firepower available sooner.. they fly low and slow… and can also get up to a-10 speed (which is NOT fast). plus we can always use these as trainers later if we dont happen to need them(Dual Use)! only prob i have is how durable these things are? I mean it looks kinda fragile… lol… get something rugged like the p-47 or somehting.. doesnt look like this platform can take rounds… Its slow… so it does matter!
	John April 27th, 2009 at 12:18 pm Why not just bring back the OV-10 Bronco?
	Steve G April 27th, 2009 at 1:02 pm What can a modified T-6 program accomplish that a UAV program can’t? (Other than put a man in harm’s way and have a longer logistics tail). Seems UAVs fill the light support role quite nicely. And no one gets killed or captured when one goes down.
	DensityDuck April 27th, 2009 at 2:03 pm Or the AD-1, for that matter. Or a B-52 loaded with JDAM, and replace the OEW operators with extra pilots and crew facilities, and let the thing orbit on-station and just spew out bombs whenever the troops call for them.
	hess April 27th, 2009 at 2:30 pm ^^ good idea… immediate on call cas
	Kelly April 27th, 2009 at 2:56 pm Stephen has it right. Buying single-digit million dollar a/c to use, train, then turn over to host nation for their use. We can’t give them A-10s or F-16s. Too much infrastructure for them to operate (spares, training, maintenance). They will likely have challenges with sand & hot days, but same challenges as other a/c. Regarding ground fire, in a lot of operations, intel is good to not put pilot in harms way. We’ll see if that intel keeps when turning over security operations to partner nation. Regarding UAVs, probably not time yet to give armed UAVs to Afghanistan. Regarding when we get out, we’ll probably leave when a solid government is in effect acrosss the board. Otherwise, its a safe-haven for bad guys to train, recruit, etc. Don’t forget about the multi-billion poppy indusrty affecting our nation– needs ISR and light strike. Super Tucano and T-6 are good for that mission.
	Rick April 28th, 2009 at 11:35 am I’m with the several posters who wrote about bringing the OV-10 Bronco for this. If you can’t get the Bronco back into production then a simular twin engine design would seem better suited than a single engine trainer variant.
	Tim April 28th, 2009 at 12:13 pm What would a graduate from UPT want less, a spot in a CAS aircraft or flying a UAV from Nellis. You don’t want to waste a B-52 circling the battle field, but modify a T-767 to a B-767 with Bomb bays like a P-8A and you will have a multirole munitions dump truck at 90% of the payload and 90% of the speed of a B-52 and much less maintenance and fuel consumption of a B-52. That saves the B1 and B2 for penetrating roles. If would leave a common Tanker, Bomber and ISR aircraft(JSTARS/AWACS-NG).
	Bob April 28th, 2009 at 2:02 pm Anyone comming out of UPT is going to want to fly a real aircraft (Inside the aircraft that is)… I personally know of a few people who would kill for a slot in an CAS aircraft (wether it be this one or an a-10, or a yellow crop duster plane w/only a mounted gun.) Getting stuck w/a UAV slot out of UPT is like catching the plague… nobody wants them… They should make it a totally different track.. About the circling dump trucks.… if we plan to keep using b-52’s for another 50yrs (100yr service life) then oviosly someone designed it right… you might aswell make plans to build a line and pump a couple new ones out with newer engines.. that should decrease maintenance (as parts are available)and fuel consumption problems.. stick with a proven design (especially when you are cutting the hi-tech NGB). Lets face it… airliners were designed to carry people not bombs… extensive modifications will have to be made, and design/estimated costs skyrocket…
	Jerry April 28th, 2009 at 3:50 pm The Air Force is considering a proposal from G2mil http://www.g2mil.com/O-6B.htm The T-6 is in the inventory and American made. Note that its value is for observation more than CAS. Once it finds targets, it can call in jets if required.
	FlyingFox April 30th, 2009 at 7:15 am The OV-10 is the proper platform for this mission, but as with the A-10, the tooling is gone and there is no easy way to restrat production. As for props in the desert, the principle reason for using a turboprop aircraft over a jet is efficiency. The T prop is a much more efficient system for low altitude and long endurance missions, exactly what COIN requires. There are plenty of ways to shield exhaust and other heat signatures from MANPADs and as was pointed out above we use Chinooks and other big heat and IR emitters already. I would also keep in mind that one advantage that low flying aircraft have is a lower acquisition time in urban environments. That is to say that if your MANPAD equipped hostile is between buildings, you cross his aquisition arc faster at lower altitudes than higher. This is why, while the loss rates are not low, OH-58Ds can operate relatively safely in Iraq. Add to this other countermeasure systems and you are fairly safe. The Iraqis have been properly equipped with Cessna 208 Caravans for ISR platforms. They are far cheaper to operate than rotary wing, they have a very high MTBF on their systems and they can work very nicely as a loitering Command and Control platform. We should do the same. As far as putting a gun on an airplane… …well our current regime just cancelled the C-27J which was going to have a gunship variant. In addition it would have been a far more efficient intratheater hauler and MEDEVAC platform than what we currently use. Lots of interesting thoughts here but the OV-10 is the proper platform for this mission, but as was stated, the USAF doesn’t want to be in the dirt and every time the Army asks for help, the USAF feels compelled to get in and muck up the works to the point where the Army loses and the USAF fiefdom is maintained. I have seen it over an over. One last point. As far as old technology goes, the US Taxpayer has spent billions on “super reconnaissance” helicopters, the latest boondoggle being the ARH; only to come to realize that the best platform for light rotary wing reconnaissance remains the OH-6 or in its current form the AH-6J. Sometimes, like the B-52, you get it right the first time.
	Tony Conner April 30th, 2009 at 7:17 am Looks like retirement of the A1-D Sky Raider has left a permanent hole in CAS capability. The A-10 is a great aircraft, but why use an A-10 when a cheaper aircraft can do the job and leave the A-10 available to look for more suitable targets (tanks, trucks, buildings, etc.) UAV’s are often doing this job, but a pilot in the cockpit can often make quick decisions needed in combat easier to achieve.
	Gary (USAF retired) April 30th, 2009 at 7:38 am Hi all I’d like to suggest that the OV-10 would be the best “low cost” aircraft to use. You must have one that WILL take hits! This is a given, don’t forget ECM (Electronic Counter Measures) at this level (AGL) you need RAW, Chaff and Flares, and as a last resort a zero/zero ejection seat. Crank up the production line, mod’d it to a all weather day/night capable A/C put a second seat in it and let’s go. Sometimes it best not to reinvent the wheel, but to see what we’ve got that WILL work. No matter what airframe you use, you’d better count on losing aircraft to ground fire, cause it will happen I MUST agree with FlyingFox. I’d suggest that we also restart the lines for the following: F-15E, F-16, C-17, to begin with, they work, the development cost is paid for, we’ve got the support already in place. We need new airframes, not necessarily new state of the art aircraft, with the economy as it today we need to fight with “what we got” but some of it is wearing out, so replace it.
	20th Century Swabby April 30th, 2009 at 7:49 am UAV is the answer!!
	L Berry April 30th, 2009 at 8:15 am Trying to do a make-over and reuse an existing platform sounds so great. Low cost, fast response …BS… The trainer was designed to carry pilots in learning environment. A simple, light weight over-powered airframe to allow for new pilots to get out of self induced trouble. Take that same light weight airframe, even allow for being over-powered. Add weapons…both gross weight and g-forces skyrocket. Airframe wasn’t designed for this so it has to be beefed up to componsate. Higher gross weight, less weapons load. Oh yes, add avionics and counter measures to support combat. More weight. Added electrical load requires bigger generators…more weight, less power for flight. Now you have a propellor version of A-10. Sluggish, under-powered, over-weight and non-responsive putting pilot in harms way. A low speed, combat attack aircraft has to be designed for role, not add on’s. Couch-potatoe combat pilots can’t olve the real world issues. The A1-E of VietNam was a huge engine with even bigger blade with airframe attached. It took a lot of pilot effort to manhandle it into combat. It wasn’t a lightweight trainer made into ground attack role.
	Matt Bruce April 30th, 2009 at 8:40 am Boy does this ever make perfect sense! I can still remember the days in Vietnam with close in air support and watching those old propeller planes dropping their ordinance EXACTLY on target and saving my sorry old butt more than once! Bring it on Air Force and thanks for being there when a lot of us really needed your help! ‘Matt Bruce’ Vietnam ’66 & ’68 Welcome Home Brothers & Sisters
	Poitical_observer April 30th, 2009 at 11:45 am The amount of modifications to the aircraft for wing plylons, armor protection for the crew and the engine compartment will more than likely increase need for a larger engine heavier suspension and the list goes on.…. Design something for the specific mission like the A10 with fuel capacity for greater loitering time over the target and an outstanding weapons system to get the job done with great ordnance load and cannon.… hmmm how about modifying the A10 or open the prodution line to produce more updated versions. What is being proosed is a commercial aircraft used as a trainer and now we want to make it a war fighter nah!!!!!!!!!
	hess April 30th, 2009 at 1:33 pm how about putting a bigger engine in an a-10? or simply bringing the sandys back!
	n7795s April 30th, 2009 at 2:15 pm The Air Force should stick to its primary role of flying transports, heavy bombardment and air to air refueling. Leave the ground support to the Army and Marines. The Apache is nearly as fast and carries more armament than a T-6 trainer could ever hope to. Also, when the Air Force had an air to ground role with the A-10, they did a poor job. The problem here is that there is no air superiority role for the Air Force in these conflicts and the fighter jocks aren’t getting noticed.
	spraynpray April 30th, 2009 at 3:05 pm Why not bring back the darling of WWII, the B-25? The J variant carried an impressive total of 18 .50 cal guns: eight in the nose, four in under-cockpit packages, two in an upper turret, two in the waist, and a pair in the tail. Add 8 rockets and 3,000 lbs bomb payload and that’s a nasty package. (thank you wikipedia for clearing the cobwebs)
	Barnacle Bill Brown April 30th, 2009 at 3:36 pm It sounds to me like a belated requirement for Burt Rutan’s ARES Mudfighter. Burt has a wonderful knack for creating minimalist solutions to aerospace needs. Among many other things, he built and demonstrated a reusable manned space vehicle, without the usual NASA style cost structure. The ARES (Agile Responsive Effective Support) design features a turbofan engine and a 25mm Gatling gun. One was built and may still be kicking around. I’ll bet that Burt could figure out a way to get some of these “mini warthogs” out supporting the troops in a big hurry and at an affordable price. Then again, we could start writing a requirements document and in another ten years or so, barring contractor protests, we might achieve IOC (Initial Operational Capability)… or don’t we use that term any more as it nolonger represents an achiievable milestone?
	Do the right thing April 30th, 2009 at 6:49 pm No, not the B-25. You meant A-26’s. A couple of dozen were completely updated and overhauled and then sent to Vietnam for CAS. And a general saw them and declared there would be no prop aircraft in his squadrons and they were sent back home and scrapped.
	mamlouie April 30th, 2009 at 8:02 pm Folks when I was in Nam 69 70 I used to watch “bird dogs” “Sky Raiders” “Broncos” and some super spooky air plane that was built like a glider with a piston engine lots of mufflers and a four blade wooden prop. I had eyes on it while it was doing touch and go at Phu Bai air strip. I could hardly hear it and in the dark night sky it was pretty tough to see. Sorry back to the subject. The Sky Raider flew low and slow and was incorperated in to close air. guns bombs what ever they needed the aircraft being of WWII vintage was heavely armored. the Bronco was push pull aircraft, prop in front prop in rear with a split tail. It to was doing CLAS.He would hang out at altitude in comunication with the ground forces and when given the grid of say a bunker complex or fortification he would swoop down on the objective mark it with Willie Pete rockets and go back to alt. Now from way up high would come a team of fast fliers and take their turn at unloading their ord on the obj. Must have gotten confirmed I wached two super V rolls right off the deck and off the coast. I’m sorry the point I’m trying to make is there could be a real good use for low and slow aircraft. Vietnam was counter insurgency same as the our leaders are finally adapting to now. My other point is that Don’t focus stricly the current terrain there will surely be different terrain features in future AO’s.
	Gordon May 1st, 2009 at 6:38 am This is about the Air Force remaining a viable part of our armed forces. The Navy/Marine Corps team has its own close air support and really doesn’t need the Air Force…ditto the Army but not to the same extent as the Navy/Marine Corps. The Air Force in many areas is really a redundant leg in our armed forces arsenal. Other than long range heavy bombing missions, the Air Force has been given a role in supporting our troops simply because they have some aircraft that can be utilized. The Air Force has been marginalized simply due to the types of wars we are engaged in and the ability of the Army, Navy/Marine Corps to provide their own close air support. S/F Gordon
	hess May 1st, 2009 at 7:42 am umm the army has appaches… but when you want bombs on the ground to take out a bunch of troups in a building or dugout somewhere.… the army doesnt have any capabilities to put iron on target other than calling in the airforce…(or the navy marines for that matter) simple fact is the army can NOT provide CAS to itself…
	Mark May 1st, 2009 at 9:09 am Gordon, AF is redundant eh? OK, may I ask: What does the Army/Navy/Marine team do for the US in a China/Taiwan conflict? How does the Navy/USMC deal with 2nd Artillery, the PLAAF and a PLA invasion force? How does the Navy/USMC get into the game without air superiority? Iran…how does the Army/Navy/USMC team deal with Persian nuclear assets? Soft power? Invade Iran? North Korea…as broke as DPRK air forces are, does the Army/USMC team operate without air dominance? Georgia/Black Sea/Caspian area trouble…how does an exclusive Navy/Army/USMC team operate effectively? Again, irrational exuberance over the irregular warfare…bet the farm that the US will not face a conventional threat ever again??? What if, in 5 or 10 years, the US is faced with a force on force conventional conflict? Do you think the JTF/CC could use the 500/2000/5000/30,000lb “bullets” the AF fires in addition to the 5.56mm and 155mm rounds the Army/USMC team brings?? Without an AF, how well does the Army/USMC team operate when attacked from the air? BTW, why does the US need two Armies??
	Propblast6 May 1st, 2009 at 10:38 am What years is this? 1960? No it is 2009 and I think that this was a idea that was developed in the 1960s in those days the were called Air Commandos.The United States Air Force had a good number of the finest ground support air craft ever built they are called A 10s. The dirty little secret of the A 10 is that it was partly the brain child of one of one of the greatest ground support pilots of all time Colonel Hans-Ulrich Rudel of the World War Two Luftwaffe (a Stuka dive-bomber pilot during World War II. Rudel is famous for being the most highly decorated German serviceman of the war. Rudel was one of only 27 military men to be awarded the Knight’s Cross with Oak Leaves, Swords, and Diamonds and the only one to be awarded the Knight’s Cross with Golden Oak Leaves, Swords and Diamonds. Rudel flew 2,530 combat missions and successfully attacked many tanks, trains, ships, and other ground targets, claiming a total of 2,000 targets destroyed — including 800 vehicles, 519 tanks, 150 artillery guns, a destroyer, two cruisers, one Soviet battleship and nine aircraft which he shot down.) Rudel knew his business when it came to ground support just build more A 10s and AC 130s they have the survivability and fire power that is needed also the sensors and counter measures needed.
	Rhyno327 May 2nd, 2009 at 11:14 am The A-10 is a superb CAS platform, it has been updated, it takes hits and keeps flying. Would these prop driven planes keep flying after being hit by a 20mm cannon? Would it protect the pilot? Well, it may be good for missions in A-stan, but then wat? We will face a conventional fight again, it will happen. Air superiority will always be #1.
	Mark May 2nd, 2009 at 11:23 am n7795s, You comment: when the AF had an air to ground role with the A10, they did a poor job.…interesting accusation: got any support for this claim? Any data? Anecdotes? Evidence? Any specific missions? Dates? BDA? Do you mean CAS with TIC or BAI…what exactly do you know? Sgt Rock comic books??
	Red Stick Guy May 2nd, 2009 at 12:40 pm 1. USAF pilots (in general) do not like combat aircraft with props. Possible exception=AC-130. 2. Slower aircraft are at greater risk of being hit by enemy guns and missiles. 3.Congress has passed laws prohibiting Army from flying fixed wing CAS aircraft. USAF wanted to give them (A-10) to the Army, but could not. (CAN THIS BE CHANGED BY CONGRESS?) 4.“Fast Movers” couldn’t hit the broad side of a barn in combat using “dumb bombs.” They used hundreds of sorties ATTEMPTING to knock out targets that one guided bomb could have done in. 5. Now that guided bombs are working, fast movers can easily hit ground targets as long as those targets are identified by spotters on ground or in the air. 6. I think that loiter time is an important point. The A1 Skyraider could loiter for one hellofva long time with a major weapons load waiting to be called in on ground targets. 7. US does not like to us foreign manufactured aircraft. Exceptions were the B-57 Canberra and the Harrier. So I think the odds of us buying a Brazilian aircraft is slim to none when Congress gets involved. (Just look at the USAF tanker issue.) 8. I think an upgraded version of the A-10 is in order. This plane was designed for CAS! Add a few new “bells and whistles” and let’s get it. Let the Marines have a version that can be placed on an aircraft carrier i.e. beefed up landing gear. 9. THOSE ARE MY THOUGHTS FOR YOU TO PONDER.
	Red Stick Guy May 2nd, 2009 at 12:51 pm 1. USAF pilots (in general) do not like combat aircraft with props. Possible exception=AC-130. 2. Slower aircraft are at greater risk of being hit by enemy guns and missiles. 3.Congress has passed laws prohibiting Army from flying fixed wing CAS aircraft. USAF wanted to give them (A-10) to the Army, but could not. (CAN THIS BE CHANGED BY CONGRESS?) 4.“Fast Movers” couldn’t hit the broad side of a barn in combat using “dumb bombs.” They used hundreds of sorties ATTEMPTING to knock out targets that one guided bomb could have done in. 5. Now that guided bombs are working, fast movers can easily hit ground targets as long as those targets are identified by spotters on ground or in the air. 6. I think that loiter time is an important point. The A1 Skyraider could loiter for one hellofva long time with a major weapons load waiting to be called in on ground targets. 7. US does not like to use foreign manufactured aircraft. Exceptions were the B-57 Canberra and the Harrier. So I think the odds of us buying a Brazilian aircraft are slim to none when Congress gets involved. (Just look at the USAF tanker issue.) 8. I think an upgraded version of the A-10 is in order. This plane was designed for CAS! Add a few new “bells and whistles” and let’s get it. Let the Marines have a version that can be placed on an aircraft carrier i.e. beefed up landing gear. 9. THOSE ARE MY THOUGHTS FOR YOU TO PONDER.
	p.w.prawl May 3rd, 2009 at 2:15 am 1. prop planes can get lower, slower, and on & off target faster, less vulnerable. 2. More maneuverable by far, easier to fly, MUCH longer endurance (loiter). 3. we had turboprop skyraider, jet jockeys threw it out. 4. t-28C (navy version) proved very good in vietnam. t-6 not big enough. 5. better matched to helo speeds for escort, cover fire, etc. Now use “standoff” weps. 6. t/28 & a-6 already equipped w/ tailhooks for small carrier and short dirt field arresting gear (Marine Corps) 7. company commanders NEED CONTROL of air cover! Old Navy fart heard it all, vietnam & Korea.
	daton325 May 4th, 2009 at 1:56 am @Hah You don’t find helo-style rotating gun platforms on fixed-wing aircraft because of the aerodynamic differences between helos and airplanes. Since an airplane relies on its body to generate lift, sticking a 360 degree gun on the bely of, say, a T-6 would severely affect the lift properties of the plane, causing it to be slower, less manueverable, and possible unsafe to fly. Helos rely on their rotor for lift, so it’s easier to stick non-aerodynamic weapons systems on helos without suffering too much performance degradation.
	jp May 27th, 2009 at 2:55 pm The senior leaders are “mulling over this” now? Bottom line is that this decision for the Air Force to get serious about an irregualr warfare wing is at least 3 years too late. Not only looking at what aircraft for light attack but boosting our advisor capability has been slow rolled for at least a decade, first by USSOCOM and now by big blue.
	OdieWan June 3rd, 2009 at 1:32 pm Mamlouie Itoo am a Nam vet (Than Son Nhut 67–68). Just a FYI, what you described was a Cessna O-2 Skyraider (mixmaster). The OV-10 Bronco was a twin turboprop, high wing, continous elevator between the tails type (think P-38). Sweet looking A/C.
	DuckPerry June 11th, 2009 at 9:35 am Interesting that they are even considering a manned platform. As much as I hate to admit it, UAS’s are the future and you all know it. An upgraded/MQ-9 Reaper type platform for this role?
	jimbo June 11th, 2009 at 10:02 am umm… reapers stay far away from the fight.. shoots missles at unsuspecting targets… this thing is going to go guns blazing, and puttin iron on target… its not going to assasinate a group of guys chillen in the desert.. i think they are looking at somehting thats going to make these guys think twice about ambushing our soldiers… Its for CAS… to my knowledge no UAS is very cabaple at that… sure it can provide overwatch and shoot a missle or two, but it will only be effective if they are packed tight? if the guys are spread our your F-ed.. two missles isnt going to take out 20 ppl spread out… missles arent for taking out ppl.. its more for equipment/armor…you need bombs, and guns… plus a man in the cockpit provides more situational awareness needed for CAS missions that require careful placement of your weapons.. Sure they might beable to develop somthing but so far, thas not the direction they are going in..
	guy July 19th, 2009 at 10:25 pm Gentlemen, First, I am a supporter of the concept more than the aircraft. I think the T-6C would be good but perhaps the super Tucano might be better. That being said, I have flow the T-6 and it is a good aircraft and the overall concept is sound. I have also spent a good bit of time overseas flying in this conflict I can tell you that it would fulfill a critical role that current aircraft cannot and at a cost that is a fraction of what we are currently spending. In a permissive environment like Iraq or Afghanistan a aircraft like the T-6 or super Tucano is relatively safe from the likely threats. The relatively slow speed and low altitude will provide CAS to Troops in Contact with greater precision and a smaller Weapons Employment Zone (ie closer to the troops fighting). This means better support for the guy on the ground. There are not enough fast movers to support the demand nor can they loiter or fly slowly enough to engage at such small distances. As for helicopters like the Apache or Cobra, they have some of the same availability issues as well as severe performance limitations in the hot and high environment we are currently engaged. All great assets but with some significant limitations. The T-6 costs approximately 1/10th as much to buy and 1/30th as much to operate as the F-16/ F-18 (and much less expensive and cheaper to operate than the Apache). That means more aircraft available to support more missions more often. Aircraft support for convoys, troops in contact, helicopter escort, recon, comm platform, etc. Currently many missions do not get support because there are simply no aircraft available to cover the demand. The T-6 is currently being flow by every new pilot in the Air Force. Thus, little time or money needs to be spend on re-training aircrew or maintenance. Also, if used as a Foreign Internal Defence (FID) aircraft, it nature as a trainer makes it ideal for instructing foreign pilots so they can assume responsibility for their own defense. The current crop of UAV are amazing and have a definite place. However, there are many times and places that having “eyes on target” and “a man in the loop” make a lot of sense. Also, in the highly dynamic environment of these conflicts having a manned asset will often have better situational awareness allowing better and time critical heat of battle decisions. This is certainly not the most glamorous of AF programs but I do believe there is a need for something like this. It is the right idea, at the right cost. But heck, that is just my 2 cents.
	Jake December 3rd, 2009 at 3:09 pm Propelled aircraft were used during WW2. To be more specific, AFRICA. They worked then, of course they could work now.
	Gunfighter May 14th, 2010 at 12:39 am Sounds like they are looking for another N156 spin-off.

NOTE: Comments are limited to 2500 characters and spaces.

By commenting on this topic you agree to the terms and conditions of our User Agreement

DoD Buzz

AF Mulls COIN Wing, New Planes

Join the Conversation

Recent Comments