Comments on: AF Mulls COIN Wing, New Planes

By: Jake

Jake — Thu, 03 Dec 2009 15:09:48 +0000

Propelled aircraft were used during WW2. To be more specific, AFRICA. They worked then, of course they could work now.

By: guy

guy — Mon, 20 Jul 2009 02:25:58 +0000

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.

By: jimbo

jimbo — Thu, 11 Jun 2009 14:02:20 +0000

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..

By: DuckPerry

DuckPerry — Thu, 11 Jun 2009 13:35:57 +0000

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?

By: OdieWan

OdieWan — Wed, 03 Jun 2009 17:32:42 +0000

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.

By: jp

jp — Wed, 27 May 2009 18:55:07 +0000

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.

By: daton325

daton325 — Mon, 04 May 2009 05:56:59 +0000

@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.

By: p.w.prawl

p.w.prawl — Sun, 03 May 2009 06:15:53 +0000

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.

By: Red Stick Guy

Red Stick Guy — Sat, 02 May 2009 16:51:19 +0000

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.

By: Red Stick Guy

Red Stick Guy — Sat, 02 May 2009 16:40:42 +0000

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.

By: Mark

Mark — Sat, 02 May 2009 15:23:49 +0000

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??

By: Rhyno327

Rhyno327 — Sat, 02 May 2009 15:14:42 +0000

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.

By: Propblast6

Propblast6 — Fri, 01 May 2009 14:38:48 +0000

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.

By: Mark

Mark — Fri, 01 May 2009 13:09:45 +0000

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??

By: hess

hess — Fri, 01 May 2009 11:42:09 +0000

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…

By: Gordon

Gordon — Fri, 01 May 2009 10:38:28 +0000

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

By: mamlouie

mamlouie — Fri, 01 May 2009 00:02:31 +0000

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.

By: Do the right thing

Do the right thing — Thu, 30 Apr 2009 22:49:18 +0000

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.

By: Barnacle Bill Brown

Barnacle Bill Brown — Thu, 30 Apr 2009 19:36:40 +0000

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?

By: spraynpray

spraynpray — Thu, 30 Apr 2009 19:05:38 +0000

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)