COIN Air Wing Looks Likely

COIN Air Wing Looks Likely

Michael Vickers provides the Pentagon one of the most creative brains around, especially in his area of expertise — irregular (hybrid etc. etc.) warfare. What’s really nifty about Vickers, who largely ran US operations in Afghanistan when we were working with the local insurgents against the Soviets, is that he gets to use that experience as the Defense Secretary’s top advisor on special operations and low intensity conflict. Vickers had breakfast with Christian Lowe and a small group of defense reporters and told them that OSD will probably support the idea — first offered publicly by the Air Force CoS Gen. Norton Schwartz – of a COIN air wing during the QDR. Of course, that would mean the Air Force will have to buy one or more versions of an increasing slew of propeller planes designed for counter-insurgency operations.

Here’s Christian’s story:

The Pentagon’s guru for special operations and low intensity conflict, the renowned Michael Vickers, told us that he believes a light strike, light reconnaissance aircraft would be useful to troops in an unconventional fight.


“That’s one of the issues that this QDR is looking at about how to create these sort of irregular warfare air units — should we do that, number one, because nothing has been decided — then what that mix might be. But it might not reside in the special operations forces, it might reside in the general purpose forces as sort of a counterinsurgency capability,” Vickers said July 23.

Of course, this jibes with the Navy’s Imminent Fury initiative and rumblings from Norty Schwartz (USAF-COS) to create an irregular air wing in the Air Force.

Vickers went on to raise an interesting point — one that the brief I posted yesterday from the Navy’s IWO hinted at in the section on Imminent Fury — that an aircraft like that could also be an advantage to training local forces in counterinsurgency air techniques.

“One of the advantages with that kind of aircraft being adapted to the counterinsurgency battlefield is that they tend to be very inexpensive and something that a partner nation could afford. … They’re getting a look,” he said.

But before you think Vickers was hedging on the creation of an irregular air force, listen to what he said later when pressed.

“I think there is a need for that kind of capability. I think that capability is being looked at in the QDR. But the question is how much, and exactly the mix,” Vickers added. Notice he didn’t say ‘whether’ it would be created or part of the recommendations from the QDR.

And then this more demonstrative statement:

“I’m fairly confident we’ll end up with something. The question is how large a force and what capability to we put in there and whether we put it in over time. But some kind of irregular warfare something or other — some Air Force unit, whether it’s a series of squadrons or a wing or a group or whatever — I think is an idea whose time has come.”

Looks like the Spads will be back!

Join the Conversation

It makes sense the rest of the services are gearing toward irregular warefare… THe AF should too.. we dont need billions of dollars of AC out there when we can use these things more effectivley.

Let’s call them the “Air Commandos”! Wait — didn’t we do this 40-some years ago?

Stick around long enough and you’ll see just about everythong — twice!

Small, cheap airpolanes with LGBs (Small Diameter Bomb) with effective MANPADS countermeasures — that would be the Taliban’s worst nightmare.

Yes, the aircraft might be useful. It seems, since we cannot afford everything, that we should only buy these if they would certainly be useful.

Why buy a totally different aircraft needing new logistics, training, certification, etc? Could we just adapt the A-10 to the role? We have trained pilots, we have spare parts, we have trained maintenance people, etc. It sounds like we are retiring some of the A-10s, maybe we could just transfer them to the Afghan Air Force.

You know the AF fighter generals are NOT happy with this idea. They want a pointy nosed jet that can mix it up with the latest adversaries (even if they are just in development right now) and will see this as money diverted from the F-22 and F-35.

Sure we have done this before — and the remaining aircraft from that time is versions of the AC-130. Perhaps we could just refit more C-130s to do that role?

This just seems like some people have made a decision and are now trying to find facts to justify it.

they would be useful..

what we are trying to do is swat flys w/hammer… instead of a 1000lb piece of steal…

more cost effective to fight w/this equipment.. cost less to run and operate.. plus you still get the results you want… = dead terrorists.

A COIN aircraft is a useful addition. But we seem to lack an actual strategy.

While it is impossible to know the future we can’t build only COIN aircraft because the war that we have now could use them. The next one may be a high intensity conflict and then we will miss all those F-22 we ought to have built instead of these armed trainers.

We also seem to think that one aircraft must do everything. This is a flawed approach, some aircraft are quite versitile but nothing dose evertyhing well.

The result is a jack of all trades, master of none train wreck like the F-35.

Cancel the F-35, build more f-22s, round out the numbers with more F-18s which are a decent GP aircraft.

For CAS there is no good replacement for the A-10. How about an UCAV with the Avenger cannon?

For coin, comine this with the CAS requirement if possible, if not then I was impressed with some of the Marine OV-10s. They had a belly mounted turret and worked like a mini-AC-130. some SDBs and some quiet engines on this combined with modern sensors and you have quite a night weapon. Could be used on the border too.

But there is a big downside, this is helpless vs all but the most primitive AAA or enemy air.

I guess you needed that F-22 after all.

M167A1–

Kind of a weird comment.

I agree with part of what you say. The future is uncertain, F-35 does seem to be a “jack of all trades”, and I’m no fan of the design philosophy that created it. Our overall strategy for AfPak is muddled.

However, nobody’s talking about building “only COIN”. COIN CAS will be more precise, and kill fewer civilians than fast-mover bombers and fighters, so that’s an improvement and worth it. There’s no evidence they’ll be “helpless vs all but the most primitive AAA or enemy air.” With good tactics and enough armor in the right spots, they’ll do fine.

As for the F-22, it may mature into a great airplane, but I’m not convinced it’s there. If Lockmart has any business sense besides “send in the lobbyists”, they’ll strip that thing down for foreign sales, and if they do it right and get the price down, MAYBE they’ll win back some US DoD cash. As it exists, it’s the over-priced, over-due product of undisciplined defense pork, and we can do better. Systems like that worry me. You can get a false sense of security from a machine like that, and forget to use your brain. Brains is what wins the fight.

It seems that the AF and Marines are both racing to refit more C-130 airframes for counterinsurgency. With C-130s and A-10s and support from other aircraft and helicopters and UAVs and whatever — do we need another airframe? Do we need to recreate the A-1 Skyraider?

Probably not.

Incredible…aren’t they forgetting the napalm and agent orange too? Can’t believe anyone in the 21st century would want a manned cessena flying around with F-22 fighter jocks having to land every two hours for fuel when we have UAVs that can do the same job better and can loiter over the battlefield for half a day. What benefit would be gained with these manned prop jobs? Just more money for retired generals who work at a cessena factory. Stupidly is the word of the week and it fits nicely here. We could use more AC-130 gunships..the terrorists most feared weapon besides the UAVs.

LtCol Phillips,

Spads have a deservedly good reputation because they worked. AC-130s do too. If there’s a niche the gunships can’t fill, are you dead set against a COIN plane? Besides, they’re cheap. Sell ‘em when we’re done.

Chief K,

If the UAVs can do the same job better, how come they aren’t? Unmanned is fine for surveillance, manned aircraft are more flexible, better SA, more and better selection of weapons, etc. Cessna Generals are less deserving than Lockmart Generals or General Atomics Generals? We can free up “conventional” assets that aren’t needed for this fight.

This is where we are headed with joint ops in AFPAK. SPECOPS needs priority on COIN AC in addition to other combat brigades. We will work this teamwork thing out! You have to work in a high speed, high trust, high effectiveness environment to get to those suddenly appearing kill boxes vaporized.

http://​www​.jfcom​.mil/​n​e​w​s​l​i​n​k​/​s​t​o​r​y​a​r​c​h​i​v​e​/​2​0​0​9​/​p​a​0​5​2​8​0​9​.​h​tml

Counter Insurgency otherwise known as occupation duty is responsible for a US military being much larger than it needs to be using 8 million barrels of oil per day.
That is eight million barrels of oil PER DAY.
I say again 8 million barrels of oil per day.
It is impossible to over emphasize this figure.
Put it all in to PERSPECTIVE. Then start to commit acts of waste fraud and abuse and send the profits to Abu Mahdi in Fallujah or his cousin in Mosul. After all your superiors have set an excellent example for many many years.

These things should, no MUST have a degree of armor protection.

Personally I would like to see the USAF adopt the following strategy.

- Buy some 200+ total of these various types of COIN planes, or allow the Army to operate their own fleet of such aircraft.

- Maintain as many A-10Cs as possible.
– Buy 500+ F-22s
– Buy 1300+ F-35s
– Upgraded F-15Es and keep them in service

- Buy some 200+ total of these various types of COIN planes, or allow the Army to operate their own fleet of such aircraft.

- Join the USN in development of a long range, stealthy, and relatively low-cost subsonic strike/reconnaissance UCAV like the X-47B.

- Delay NGB and look instead for a fighter-bomber such the proposed F/B-22 or my personal favorite the F/B-23.

- Resume the NGB program for a new strategic bomber in 2015, with an in-service date of 2025.

Seems like I wrote the same thing twice…

Really I don’t think we need more than three hundred or so of these COIN aircraft, considering the number of UAVs and other aircraft in the area.

From an old AC-130 and ground guy, low and slow + daylight = tough operations and low survivability ratios. The guys on the ground need the help, no doubt about it, and the accuracy, with proper sensors and weapons control are invaluable. Tough call, but inexpensive and feasible timewise to test out. Again, it’ll take a special breed to fly close enough and slow enough to do the mission in broad daylight. Leave the nights to the old Spectre/Spooky, it’s a tried and true (if limited) platform. MTC

Seems like a good idea. Would it lower costs all around with maintenance, fuel, training,etc. Don’t we have old A-1 skyraiders that we can put back on line? I am not familiar with there capabilites, costs to operate, survivability. That aircraft seemed to be the go to bird for rescue ops and what is being dicussed here. Why not use this aircraft or if they are to bad off, design on lessons learned from the past.

Now military​.com is carrying the story that the Marines are gonna field this aircraft. If anything will make the AF hate it — the news that a rival service likes it will do the trick.

The idea seems to be to have a low+slow aircraft — I am NOT an airplane driver but the ones I know all believe that Speed Is Life. It sounds like an uneducated peasant with a heavy duty rifle, sitting on a hilltop, could knock down a low and slow aircraft pretty cheaply. The proposed COIN aircraft appears to be a single engine aircraft as well — so one magic bb would do the trick.

Call me a pessimist but I just don’t see this being worth the money.

We do need a COIN aircraft, but we just retired old A-10 airframes and F-16 airframes to meet a certain aircraft limit put on the airforce in the 2010 budget.

Boeing has proposed putting the OV-10 Bronco into production again. And air truck has a very suitable platform. But, as always, buying more of those over rated F35’s that we managed to sell a bunch of countries takes priority over logic…and the guys on the ground pay because of political stupidity.

Seems to me they might be able to lease a couple dozen for a spell.

With the option to buy, of course.

It wouldn’t be unprecedented.

The A10s are capable of fighting this type of air campaign and we can utiluze the air force and army aviation warrant officers to fly this type cover. We already have the aircrafts our last prop planes utilize in VN and A10s

Pull all the S3s out of mothballs and use them.

An interesting idea but I thought that the UAV,s were doing that work now. Why not build another wing and train Iraq pilots to fly them. Are they too good to allow other countries to have them. These beefed up trainers can be knocked down by stingers or Triple A without any trouble. They fly too low and slow. I know if I were assigned to fly one in a combat zone, I would break my wings before the enemy got the chance to kill me.

Old Pilot–

“…I thought that the UAV,s were doing that work now.”

–Nope. UAVs do recon and assassinations, not CAS.

“These beefed up trainers can be knocked down by stingers or Triple A without any trouble.”

–They’ve got flares and threat warning, similar to attack helos, & those aren’t getting shot down left right and center. Super Tucs can go better than 300kts, same for AT-6, AT-802 is around 200kts. Where they’re being sent, there isn’t much threat from MANPADs or AAA.

We need something slower and more precise than fast jets with more hang time. Have you got a better solution?

Bring back the OV-10, Bronco !

We have a turboprop powered F-51 sitting in our boneyard here that was left over from the last time this idea came up and they were evaluating aircraft. I don’t see why they just don’t upgrade the original P-51 designs, as was done with that one, with modern avionics and powerplants. P-47’s, P-51’s, SD-1’s all were flying tanks that took everything the AA people could throw at them, still delivered the goods and brought their pilots home. Can you imagine what a 2009 version of a P-51 could do in a ground-support role? Why re-invent the wheel?

David–

I take your point, and you’re more or less right. Small disagreement: Original P/ F-51s had the weakness of a vulnerable radiator, those were never great for ground attack. Lots of good WWII pilots were lost/ captured that way.

One take on why the turboprop Mustangs (Enforcer) got canned is found (last four paragraphs) here: http://www.volanteaircraft.com/ov-10–9.htm

I recommend reading the rest of that article and the other on that site about the “light-light support aircraft.” Great stuff!

But the main reason they don’t do what you suggest… those machines are out of production, way out. We need whatever we can get, and these trainers and crop dusters are what’s there.

Mike
I believe that “The Enforcer” is the modified P/F-51 we have. The difference is that with the turboprop it doesn’t have a “vulnerable radiator” and even that old design could be protected by current technology, Look at the bucket the A-10 pilots ride around in. The problem that the Merlins and Alisons had from that is no longer a factor. The different between the old war birds and the current bush planes and crop dusters is:
1.) 200–250 MPH when needed (and if you’re pinned down on the ground under hostile fire, you need it NOW!) Iron on site, on target minutes earlier.
2.) the ability to take battle damage and still get home (the engine would need to be armored)
3.)several thousands of pounds of difference in ordinance lift, on site and at altitude (JDAMS/GBUs) or low level direct support, options not available with the puddle-jumpers. That added ordinance means fewer bad guys at endgame.

Yes, they’re out of production but the scehmatics are all still available and they can be tooled up & spooled up to be mass-produced in less time that it would take to machine bulkheads for a flight of F-22’s and stuff the fuselage together.

Someone else suggested S-3’s. My choice would be S-2’s (see turboprop volnerability) We also have beaucoup A-7’s at Davis Monthan along with other aircraft.
The problem with these tiny fragile COIN birds is that which should have been learned in WWII with the LST’s LST: Large, SLOW Targets. Slow aircraft are more likely to be brought down by direct fire weapons, a veritable hail of small-arms fire, RPG’s and crew-served weapons; as mentioned by another poster, “magic BB’s”. The more time you have to direct “BB’s” on a slow-moving target, the more likely one will be “magic” it only takes one 7.63x39 round to convert a slow turboprop to a slower glider. That is a real advantage of the old radials. They could come home with numerous cylinders shot completely away and still be flying. You can’t do that an aircraft that can be taken down by a pigeon strike. Once a turbine ingests metal, on a single-engine turboprop, the party is over and the rescuer becomes a rescu-ee.

David–

Very little daylight between us, really. Not real sure the air defense threat is as grim as you make it out, but no doubt, higher Vmax is nice when needed, so’s a thicker hide.

The little kid in me would love to see what they’d do to a rebuilt Mustang, or Jug, or Spad… I’d like to see more A-10s and OV-10s roll off a line, too. I know they *could* do it, someone’s always patching together a warbird out of three wrecks or something, and there were those Me-262 reproductions not long ago. That bureaucratic-Pentagon-Congressional mountain is damn tall, though. They’ll raid O&M for their pork projects, but something that makes sense for the war right now? Just read that article up above again, notice all the qualifiers, and we’re waiting for the QDR on top of that. These are not people in a hurry.

We still use this type of airplane? I thought we retire this in 1943.

Since this thread got bumped, for anyone who cares:

The four US Marines killed in that ambush near Ganjgal, Afghanistan had NO air support. Apparently they were told it would be five minutes out, but no. No jets, no helos, and obviously, no COIN CAS. No artillery either, except some WP for cover.

Sounds like they did damn good not to lose more people.

Semper Fi.

ov-10x

http://​www​.ov​-10bronco​.net/​T​e​c​h​n​i​c​a​l​/​b​o​e​i​n​g​_​o​v​-​1​0​(​x​)​_​s​u​p​e​r​_​b​r​o​n​c​o​_​i​n​f​o​_​c​a​r​d​_​2​0​0​9​_​0​1​.​pdf

Rutan Ares

I am a former Air Force Air Commando who served a year with the 606th Air Commando Squadron in 67 and 68 a few miles from the Meh Kong river, which I never could spell right.
We flew single engine props,mostly from fourties and fifties vintage to great effect on Ho Chi Minh trail and low, slow bombing/strafing missions and rescue assist.
Ideas you all have expressed here are basic, proven and probably needed if indeed the US wants to win something somewhere at the moment.
“Commando Can-Do!”

Don H.
SFC, Retired
US Army
Prior AF also

Yes, we had same problem/ Generals vs Props vs jets. Generals want one thing: promotions. They can’t get it with props, so we suffered with no parts and such at times and only lasted a very short time before disbandment or downgrade so they could have same instead.

Don H.
SFC Ret. USA

*required

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