Comments on: ISR Gunships To Target Taliban

By: Phil E. Drifter

Phil E. Drifter — Sun, 19 Jul 2009 02:07:02 +0000

Nuke ‘em from orbit; it’s the only way to be sure.

By: Steve

Steve — Thu, 28 May 2009 03:26:38 +0000

Perhaps it is time to eyeball the Air Force. Close air support for the ground pounders is not the forte or the disposition of the Air Force. Let them achieve air superiority with the Naval and Marine assets in support of a theater wide conflict. Marine and Naval aviation is deployable by carrier and has a greater selection of weapons for ground support. No one does close up and personal like naval aviation. The Air Force wanted to shed the “Warthog” like a bad cold. It is the most lethal anti-tank and armor weapon we have. It is in great demand by ground commanders. Strip the AF of ongoing ground support roles and use the Marine concept of an integrated ground, ground support, role. The AF can focus on strategic forces, space, and satellite commands. Vertical insertion of troops is sheer folly. Choppers fall from the skies with ease with the current shoulder fired missle imventory and radar controlled AA batteries.

By: Ken Bailes

Ken Bailes — Sun, 24 May 2009 17:01:51 +0000

Reguardless this is a great idea that should be implemented immeadiately. This platform has proven reliable over decades and if the boots on the ground say it is needed… Give it to them NOW! What the hell, Is the Taliban going to put a bounty/reward for who ever is able to shoot one down like was done during Vietnam. I wonder how many goats that equals too?

By: tony951

tony951 — Tue, 19 May 2009 22:56:26 +0000

solomon, I don’t believe mondo was suggesting that the air crews carry laws, when he said troops i believe he meant the grunts, ground pounders, troops on the ground, the tip of the spear, ect.

By: solomon

solomon — Tue, 19 May 2009 21:40:43 +0000

mondo.…i hope you are saying to fire a law from inside a tanker down onto a target???!!!! that would be comically tragic…so since you weren’t considering that what would the aircrew do with the laws that they’re carrying?

By: mondo

mondo — Tue, 19 May 2009 16:06:33 +0000

Having fought in the moutains W/C-2/501 101st Airborne,Vietnam Ripcord AO 1970, you need firepower, that will be on station. Cobras are good, may even consider Chinooks as a platform, but weather was a factor. With KC 130J, that brings a punch. I would even suggest the troops carry 2 laws each, they are light & have range.

By: Rhyno327

Rhyno327 — Tue, 19 May 2009 14:07:08 +0000

Can part of the payload be SDB’s? Iam not sure how many you can hang on a tanker, but I bet its more than a few.

By: Curt

Curt — Tue, 19 May 2009 06:48:36 +0000

Actually, this idea has been around awhile (at least since the 1990s that I can remember), but the arguement against having tankers be an integral part of the surveillence network (other than comms relay) has always been that they are too vulnerable to have them orbit where you need them. The Marines made the decision to adopt an existing asset that was orbiting the battlefield anyway to give them better long duration surveillence coverage (and possibly strike capability) at a reasonable cost that can be used when and where you need it, doesn’t signifigently degrade any other missions the planes have, and can be removed when you don’t need it anymore or is too dangerous to employ. Of course it only works when you have no SAM threat, but low intensity COIN operations in places like Iraq and Afghanistan are no brainers. Unlike the MRAP, which when the current conflict is over will be stored in a big building somewhere, this is a capability that will enhance the KC-130J force for years to come.

By: sgtrye

sgtrye — Tue, 19 May 2009 05:55:12 +0000

You want a lower cost alternative to naval gunfire, the Marines already have part of the solution with HIMARS, I rember a mission where the Army successfully tested the feasbility of firing the M270A1 Which is alarge tracked vehicle from a Naval platform (a ship) Using the HIMARS and firing the the newest generation of MLRS rockets could give a bombardment capability the service is looking for, it seems to me that tactics and techniques need to be developed to make use of what they have.

By: sgtrye

sgtrye — Tue, 19 May 2009 05:53:55 +0000

You want a lower cost alternative to naval gunfire, the marines already have part of the solution with HIMARS, I rember a mission where the Army successfully tested the feasbility of firing the M270A1 from a Naval platform (a ship) Using the HIMARS firing the the newest generation of MLRS rockets could give a bombardment capability the service is looking for, it seems to me that tactics and techniques need to be developed to make use of what they have.

By: elgatoso

elgatoso — Tue, 19 May 2009 05:52:51 +0000

The gunship missiles and 30mm cannon are taking the place of the battleship long-range naval artillery .Maybe that is the solution.

By: IOWA61

IOWA61 — Tue, 19 May 2009 05:49:02 +0000

The Navy retired its "volume of fires" for deeply flawed reasoning in 1991. For $1B a copy you'd get: a modernized IOWA class battleship with VLS; automation for reduced manning; extended range, smart munitions for the 16" guns; updated 5" or 155s; superb refueling and repair capability; battlegroups that could replace carriers for some missions at far lower cost; and the toughest, hardest to sink ships in the world. But wait. What was I thinking? They're "old." Like B-52s and the Golden Gate Bridge. And we all know how useless those are...

By: para

para — Tue, 19 May 2009 05:08:26 +0000

How do you want to operate F-18s from a LHA? Or do you want to spend even more money getting platforms for that? USMC needs new VSTOLs, its a core capability, they need the EFV, dito. Program histories might be questionable, requirements are clearly not. All of this clearly doesnt help the AF.

“Conway also addressed the issue of naval gunfire support, saying it was clearly a “deficiency” in search of a solution.”

Almost satirical already. That search has been going on for how long now? Thirty years, forty? Good luck with that.

By: MountainSniper31

MountainSniper31 — Tue, 19 May 2009 04:29:37 +0000

The Marine Corps is “cash strapped” because they have wasted many many billions on systems like the Osprey, EFV, Harrier and a special model of the J-35. They could buy as many AC-130s as they want if they had just bought H-60s, H-92s and F-18s instead of burning through years and piles of tax dollars on their own “special” platforms.

By: solomon

solomon — Tue, 19 May 2009 03:53:24 +0000

not a scramble LtCol, the Marines put this idea out a while ago and now the AF is climbing aboard. I guarantee that if the AF decided to acquire more AC-130’s or even agreed to convert more of their tankers to this role the Marines would back off. this is a problem for AF brass in my opinion. while the ground services are requesting support, the AF is focused on fielding a 5th gen fighter force and missions are slipping through its hands.

By: jimbo

jimbo — Mon, 18 May 2009 22:07:59 +0000

lol you cant retire b-52’s if you cant replace them with something else.. and when you drop the ngb… all you have is b-52s

By: Charles Phillips, LtCol USAF Ret

Charles Phillips, LtCol USAF Ret — Mon, 18 May 2009 16:17:02 +0000

And I see the AF is acquiring “new” AC-130 gunships as well, by converting some existing aircraft.

Interesting that this is happening when the DoD budget has just shifted, and the AF is retiring some “old” aircraft. Probably not any B-52s though!

So it does appear that the Marines have complained about lack of support, and both services are scrambling to see who gets the money to provide it.