Comments on: COIN Air Wing in the Wings http://www.dodbuzz.com/2010/02/03/coin-air-wing-in-the-wings/ Online Defense and Acquisition Journal Thu, 09 Feb 2012 11:49:43 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: BOOMERhttp://www.dodbuzz.com/2010/02/03/coin-air-wing-in-the-wings/#comment-19686 BOOMER Tue, 09 Feb 2010 13:15:05 +0000 http://www.dodbuzz.com/?p=12884#comment-19686 In the interim we already have a good platform in service right now that will fit the bill for a CAS for our guys. Make the Osprey modular so that once it is in country you can mount a couple of GAU's out the side and you have an instant MINI SPECTRE GUN SHIP. All that is needed is to splice in cables for the power supplies and mounts for the weapons. They can hover for hang time time and are fast. TOO expensive for a real coin craft but will give them a dual purpose role more so justifying thier cost. In the interim we already have a good platform in service right now that will fit the bill for a CAS for our guys. Make the Osprey modular so that once it is in country you can mount a couple of GAU’s out the side and you have an instant MINI SPECTRE GUN SHIP. All that is needed is to splice in cables for the power supplies and mounts for the weapons. They can hover for hang time time and are fast. TOO expensive for a real coin craft but will give them a dual purpose role more so justifying thier cost.

]]> By: Curthttp://www.dodbuzz.com/2010/02/03/coin-air-wing-in-the-wings/#comment-19652 Curt Mon, 08 Feb 2010 15:42:30 +0000 http://www.dodbuzz.com/?p=12884#comment-19652 Good point. As initially articulated by Gen Schwartz, the idea of a "COIN" wing is to support security assistance with other nations. It was not about supporting the US Forces, although that might be a side benefit. The idea of an armed trainer is useful because the trainers are cheap, easy to fly and maintain, and can add useful additions to low tech airforces. A dual use trainer/light attack aircraft, like a "AT-6", is used to build capacity, add limited air support at a reasonable price, and serves as a stepping stone to higher performance aircraft for countries like Iraq or Afghanistan. Problem with any dedicated COIN or CAS aircraft is that it is not suitable at the primary purpose of the "COIN" wing, which is security assistance and training. Good point. As initially articulated by Gen Schwartz, the idea of a “COIN” wing is to support security assistance with other nations. It was not about supporting the US Forces, although that might be a side benefit. The idea of an armed trainer is useful because the trainers are cheap, easy to fly and maintain, and can add useful additions to low tech airforces. A dual use trainer/light attack aircraft, like a “AT-6″, is used to build capacity, add limited air support at a reasonable price, and serves as a stepping stone to higher performance aircraft for countries like Iraq or Afghanistan. Problem with any dedicated COIN or CAS aircraft is that it is not suitable at the primary purpose of the “COIN” wing, which is security assistance and training.

]]> By: Usetobehttp://www.dodbuzz.com/2010/02/03/coin-air-wing-in-the-wings/#comment-19649 Usetobe Mon, 08 Feb 2010 00:31:49 +0000 http://www.dodbuzz.com/?p=12884#comment-19649 "COIN" a/c may be more about a low tech a/c used to build partnerships (BPC) with poor countries vs an a/c for over-watch/fire of every squad. I pass off the vitriolic blather on the AF & the grunt as good natured ribbing or stupidity. The AF supports the current fight & the NMS If the AF were to only support grunt equities, then who combat/deter high-end foes? How about the advantages of space assets? nuclear deterrence? Would grunts gain air superiority & global strike? How well would grunts perform w/o command of air & space? Never happen? you are right provided the AF funds it's portion of the NMS. Dominant aerospace power requires investments.If we rebalance our millitary to a COIN force; we jeopardize our ability to win fights that threaten the existence of our nation. “COIN” a/c may be more about a low tech a/c used to build partnerships (BPC) with poor countries vs an a/c for over-watch/fire of every squad. I pass off the vitriolic blather on the AF & the grunt as good natured ribbing or stupidity. The AF supports the current fight & the NMS If the AF were to only support grunt equities, then who combat/deter high-end foes? How about the advantages of space assets? nuclear deterrence? Would grunts gain air superiority & global strike? How well would grunts perform w/o command of air & space? Never happen? you are right provided the AF funds it’s portion of the NMS. Dominant aerospace power requires investments.If we rebalance our millitary to a COIN force; we jeopardize our ability to win fights that threaten the existence of our nation.

]]> By: mike jhttp://www.dodbuzz.com/2010/02/03/coin-air-wing-in-the-wings/#comment-19643 mike j Sun, 07 Feb 2010 22:49:00 +0000 http://www.dodbuzz.com/?p=12884#comment-19643 I think they only got a clue when they realized that it'd be like 10 or 15 years before they saw a significant number of new tactical aircraft. They want it because they have no choice. I think they only got a clue when they realized that it’d be like 10 or 15 years before they saw a significant number of new tactical aircraft. They want it because they have no choice.

]]> By: Trophyhttp://www.dodbuzz.com/2010/02/03/coin-air-wing-in-the-wings/#comment-19641 Trophy Sun, 07 Feb 2010 19:01:08 +0000 http://www.dodbuzz.com/?p=12884#comment-19641 The Air Force stopped trying to get rid of the A-10's sometime about four years ago... someone finally got a clue up above. The fact that they finally commissioned the aircraft's major upgrade in 2007 to the A-10C with (HOTAS being the biggest upgrade) shows the Air Force's commitment to the airframe, as they extend it's planned service life to 2028. It's no doubt that the Air Force USED to be the red-headed step-child of the fleet that they tried to get rid of several times. But now it's earned it's respect, love and place in today's Air Force. I'm sure someone's gonna say the Air Force only wants to keep the A-10 just to save face from losing it to the Army/Marine Corps... I can only shake my head. The Air Force stopped trying to get rid of the A-10’s sometime about four years ago… someone finally got a clue up above.

The fact that they finally commissioned the aircraft’s major upgrade in 2007 to the A-10C with (HOTAS being the biggest upgrade) shows the Air Force’s commitment to the airframe, as they extend it’s planned service life to 2028.

It’s no doubt that the Air Force USED to be the red-headed step-child of the fleet that they tried to get rid of several times. But now it’s earned it’s respect, love and place in today’s Air Force. I’m sure someone’s gonna say the Air Force only wants to keep the A-10 just to save face from losing it to the Army/Marine Corps… I can only shake my head.

]]> By: Usetobehttp://www.dodbuzz.com/2010/02/03/coin-air-wing-in-the-wings/#comment-19640 Usetobe Sun, 07 Feb 2010 18:58:42 +0000 http://www.dodbuzz.com/?p=12884#comment-19640 I would like to comment on the substance of Byron's posting, but there is none. Byron is not serious, just a trite little rock thrower. I suspect Byron knows less about military affairs than most grade school children as his postings provide no insight, analysis or information, merely juvenile graffiti on an otherwise interesting site I would like to comment on the substance of Byron’s posting, but there is none. Byron is not serious, just a trite little rock thrower. I suspect Byron knows less about military affairs than most grade school children as his postings provide no insight, analysis or information, merely juvenile graffiti on an otherwise interesting site

]]> By: projob66http://www.dodbuzz.com/2010/02/03/coin-air-wing-in-the-wings/#comment-19638 projob66 Sun, 07 Feb 2010 15:49:15 +0000 http://www.dodbuzz.com/?p=12884#comment-19638 exactly what I was thinking. sounds like the OV-10 to me....... smoke away.....!!!! exactly what I was thinking. sounds like the OV-10 to me.…… smoke away.….!!!!

]]> By: projob66http://www.dodbuzz.com/2010/02/03/coin-air-wing-in-the-wings/#comment-19637 projob66 Sun, 07 Feb 2010 15:44:11 +0000 http://www.dodbuzz.com/?p=12884#comment-19637 CAS is always the toughest mission. Always. The only service and REALLY the only service that does good CAS oncall is the Marine Corps. They practice it everyday and their ground and air controllers are aviators and at least went through basic grunt school with the grunt officers. IMHO. CAS is always the toughest mission. Always. The only service and REALLY the only service that does good CAS oncall is the Marine Corps. They practice it everyday and their ground and air controllers are aviators and at least went through basic grunt school with the grunt officers. IMHO.

]]> By: projob66http://www.dodbuzz.com/2010/02/03/coin-air-wing-in-the-wings/#comment-19636 projob66 Sun, 07 Feb 2010 15:39:57 +0000 http://www.dodbuzz.com/?p=12884#comment-19636 The Air Scouts dont even let the A-10 guys park on the same apron at Nellis.... They make them park way the heck down and out at the end.. The A-10 was never near sexy enough for the Air Scouts. Remember it did not initially have all the extra weight that made it a pretty slow big target, as opposed to just a big target. And really this aircraft is a good air superiority, low threat, road recce shoot em up aircraft. They even made it do under the weather Lantirn Maverick stuff.... It has earned its kind of rough gruff 'Warthog' nomenclature and reputation despite the best efforts of the Air Scouts to divorce themselves from this unsexy, ugly duckling, in their eyes, aircraft. They need to get real.. The Air Scouts dont even let the A-10 guys park on the same apron at Nellis.… They make them park way the heck down and out at the end.. The A-10 was never near sexy enough for the Air Scouts. Remember it did not initially have all the extra weight that made it a pretty slow big target, as opposed to just a big target. And really this aircraft is a good air superiority, low threat, road recce shoot em up aircraft. They even made it do under the weather Lantirn Maverick stuff.… It has earned its kind of rough gruff ‘Warthog’ nomenclature and reputation despite the best efforts of the Air Scouts to divorce themselves from this unsexy, ugly duckling, in their eyes, aircraft. They need to get real..

]]> By: soonergrunthttp://www.dodbuzz.com/2010/02/03/coin-air-wing-in-the-wings/#comment-19627 soonergrunt Sat, 06 Feb 2010 15:56:47 +0000 http://www.dodbuzz.com/?p=12884#comment-19627 ( If you remove the pilot,) I think you just nailed the source of the Air Force's opposition to just about everything that doesn't cost millions of dollars. Look at Army vs. Air Force loss rates on Predator/Reaper. The Army almost never loses them. AF loses them quite frequently. The primary reason for this is that the Army lets the plane fly and land itself and simply operates the surveillance/targetting systems and the AF tries to 'pilot' the plane. The Army hasn't lost a single RQ-9 to a landing accident, while almost all of the AF RQ-9 mishaps have occured during landing. ( If you remove the pilot,)
I think you just nailed the source of the Air Force’s opposition to just about everything that doesn’t cost millions of dollars.
Look at Army vs. Air Force loss rates on Predator/Reaper. The Army almost never loses them. AF loses them quite frequently. The primary reason for this is that the Army lets the plane fly and land itself and simply operates the surveillance/targetting systems and the AF tries to ‘pilot’ the plane. The Army hasn’t lost a single RQ-9 to a landing accident, while almost all of the AF RQ-9 mishaps have occured during landing.

]]> By: TMBhttp://www.dodbuzz.com/2010/02/03/coin-air-wing-in-the-wings/#comment-19621 TMB Sat, 06 Feb 2010 05:19:12 +0000 http://www.dodbuzz.com/?p=12884#comment-19621 Pretty sure they already do. What's that got to do with the article? Pretty sure they already do. What’s that got to do with the article?

]]> By: WAR IIIhttp://www.dodbuzz.com/2010/02/03/coin-air-wing-in-the-wings/#comment-19614 WAR III Sat, 06 Feb 2010 00:48:18 +0000 http://www.dodbuzz.com/?p=12884#comment-19614 The Airfore should put the "blue force tracking" equipment displayed on digital maps in the cockpit of their A-10s (and all aircraft) the prevent shooting "freindlys" The Airfore should put the “blue force tracking” equipment displayed on digital maps in the cockpit of their A-10s (and all aircraft) the prevent shooting “freindlys”

]]> By: mike jhttp://www.dodbuzz.com/2010/02/03/coin-air-wing-in-the-wings/#comment-19610 mike j Fri, 05 Feb 2010 22:33:48 +0000 http://www.dodbuzz.com/?p=12884#comment-19610 The environment you're talking about resembles Vietnam more than anything else. The USAF lost 47 OV-10s in combat from '68-'73. They lost 82 O-2 Skymasters from '67-'72. Anecdotal, but these aircraft were doing the same mission. Let's throw in the A-1 Skyraider; 150 USAF combat losses from '64-'72. Vietnam by all accounts was AAA hell. Helicopters and fixed-wing are apples and oranges. Consider the advancements in sensors and precision weapons. Also, the OV-10 does have armor plates. The armed recon/ CAS mission is not as dangerous today as you're imagining. This is probably moot anyway. The OV-10 apparently didn't make the cut for the LAAR, Boeing no longer appears on the interested vendor list on the FBO site. I also think the USAF is foot dragging with the hope that they'll cancel this before they have to see one dime spent that could go to the F-35 etc.. The environment you’re talking about resembles Vietnam more than anything else. The USAF lost 47 OV-10s in combat from ’68-’73. They lost 82 O-2 Skymasters from ’67-’72. Anecdotal, but these aircraft were doing the same mission. Let’s throw in the A-1 Skyraider; 150 USAF combat losses from ’64-’72. Vietnam by all accounts was AAA hell.

Helicopters and fixed-wing are apples and oranges. Consider the advancements in sensors and precision weapons. Also, the OV-10 does have armor plates. The armed recon/ CAS mission is not as dangerous today as you’re imagining.

This is probably moot anyway. The OV-10 apparently didn’t make the cut for the LAAR, Boeing no longer appears on the interested vendor list on the FBO site. I also think the USAF is foot dragging with the hope that they’ll cancel this before they have to see one dime spent that could go to the F-35 etc..

]]> By: mike jhttp://www.dodbuzz.com/2010/02/03/coin-air-wing-in-the-wings/#comment-19584 mike j Fri, 05 Feb 2010 22:21:22 +0000 http://www.dodbuzz.com/?p=12884#comment-19584 Air and Space mag has an article on the OV-10 in the latest issue, it's online too: <a href="http://www.airspacemag.com/military-aviation/Legends-of-Vietnam-Broncos-Tale.html#" rel="nofollow">http://www.airspacemag.com/military-aviation/Lege...</a> Suggest you go read about that "one trick pony" and watch the short video too (seeing is believing). As to your assertion about MANPADs, two OV-10As were shot down with them in the Gulf War, one crew member was killed. The -10A did not have IR strobes or suppressed exhaust. OV-10Ds had that equipment, none were hit. A CH-47 recently survived a "complex attack" with MANPADs by using a laser IR jammer. Make of that what you will. Air and Space mag has an article on the OV-10 in the latest issue, it’s online too:

http://www.airspacemag.com/military-aviation/Lege…

Suggest you go read about that “one trick pony” and watch the short video too (seeing is believing).

As to your assertion about MANPADs, two OV-10As were shot down with them in the Gulf War, one crew member was killed. The –10A did not have IR strobes or suppressed exhaust. OV-10Ds had that equipment, none were hit. A CH-47 recently survived a “complex attack” with MANPADs by using a laser IR jammer. Make of that what you will.

]]> By: William C.http://www.dodbuzz.com/2010/02/03/coin-air-wing-in-the-wings/#comment-19603 William C. Fri, 05 Feb 2010 21:22:08 +0000 http://www.dodbuzz.com/?p=12884#comment-19603 I don't know what data there is on the subject of OV-10s during Desert Storm, but I do know that we have lost too many helicopters over the years to small arms fire. I'm not saying it needs to be a P-47, but whatever we select should have some better armor than a layer of Kevlar in the pilot's seat. We have effective IR jammers and methods to throw off whatever SA-7s they will be firing, but 14.5mm anti-aircraft MGs can't be fooled so easily. I don’t know what data there is on the subject of OV-10s during Desert Storm, but I do know that we have lost too many helicopters over the years to small arms fire. I’m not saying it needs to be a P-47, but whatever we select should have some better armor than a layer of Kevlar in the pilot’s seat.

We have effective IR jammers and methods to throw off whatever SA-7s they will be firing, but 14.5mm anti-aircraft MGs can’t be fooled so easily.

]]> By: @tc399http://www.dodbuzz.com/2010/02/03/coin-air-wing-in-the-wings/#comment-19599 @tc399 Fri, 05 Feb 2010 21:05:14 +0000 http://www.dodbuzz.com/?p=12884#comment-19599 The Air Force already owns 550 Cessna 172 and 182 airframes and gave them to the Civil air Patrol which is now a 501(c)(3) but is being used to do things decidedly un-civilian. Granted, a glass cockpit 182 isn’t an OV10 and isn’t going to come screaming out of the clouds firing rockets…but I have seen Piper Cubs come screaming out of the clouds firing rockets and Some CAP 182s are sporting predator pods under their wings. <a href="http://www.suasnews.com/2009/10/92/there-are-not-enough-predators-in-this-world/" target="_blank">http://www.suasnews.com/2009/10/92/there-are-not-...</a> 182s are flown as military aircraft in ten countries. So we have those and we have OV10s and we still have some Skyraiders..and for a cheap thrill, we still have a lot of A4s rotting at Davis-Monthan. Why not use what we already paid for and have sitting out there?. I may be biased. If we need something new I think a small, fast airplane with laser illumination and sensing capabilities would work nicely and my choice, from having flown all of these is a Vari-Eze. I understand that it does not meet ANY of the specifications but maybe the specifications are wrong. A beefed-up Vari-Eze is almost invisible to radar, as hard to hit with groundfire as a hummingbird, and could EASILY carry ordinance. And it flies like a P51 on steroids. If you remove the pilot, you can buy hundreds of them for the cost of a few Predators. We have to stop wasting money we don’t have. We have simple solutions available but no way to implement them over the influence of lobbyists. The Air Force already owns 550 Cessna 172 and 182 airframes and gave them to the Civil air Patrol which is now a 501©(3) but is being used to do things decidedly un-civilian.

Granted, a glass cockpit 182 isn’t an OV10 and isn’t going to come screaming out of the clouds firing rockets…but I have seen Piper Cubs come screaming out of the clouds firing rockets and Some CAP 182s are sporting predator pods under their wings.

http://www.suasnews.com/2009/10/92/there-are-not-…

182s are flown as military aircraft in ten countries. So we have those and we have OV10s and we still have some Skyraiders..and for a cheap thrill, we still have a lot of A4s rotting at Davis-Monthan. Why not use what we already paid for and have sitting out there?.

I may be biased. If we need something new I think a small, fast airplane with laser illumination and sensing capabilities would work nicely and my choice, from having flown all of these is a Vari-Eze. I understand that it does not meet ANY of the specifications but maybe the specifications are wrong.

A beefed-up Vari-Eze is almost invisible to radar, as hard to hit with groundfire as a hummingbird, and could EASILY carry ordinance. And it flies like a P51 on steroids. If you remove the pilot, you can buy hundreds of them for the cost of a few Predators.

We have to stop wasting money we don’t have. We have simple solutions available but no way to implement them over the influence of lobbyists.

]]> By: @tc399http://www.dodbuzz.com/2010/02/03/coin-air-wing-in-the-wings/#comment-19598 @tc399 Fri, 05 Feb 2010 21:02:20 +0000 http://www.dodbuzz.com/?p=12884#comment-19598 The navy doesn't fly OV10s. The Navy is the taxi service for the Marine Corps. The Air Force is the High-altitude support and observation service for the Marine Corps. The Army spends the money the Marine Corps should have. I'm having a pretty good time with this! I wonder if I am convincing? The navy doesn’t fly OV10s. The Navy is the taxi service for the Marine Corps. The Air Force is the High-altitude support and observation service for the Marine Corps. The Army spends the money the Marine Corps should have.

I’m having a pretty good time with this! I wonder if I am convincing?

]]> By: @tc399http://www.dodbuzz.com/2010/02/03/coin-air-wing-in-the-wings/#comment-19596 @tc399 Fri, 05 Feb 2010 20:57:11 +0000 http://www.dodbuzz.com/?p=12884#comment-19596 The navy doesn't fly OV10s. The navy is the taxi service for the Marine Corps. The Air Force is the High-altitude support and observance branch of the Marine Corps. The Army spends the money the Marine Corps should have. I'm having a pretty good time with this! The navy doesn’t fly OV10s. The navy is the taxi service for the Marine Corps. The Air Force is the High-altitude support and observance branch of the Marine Corps. The Army spends the money the Marine Corps should have. I’m having a pretty good time with this!

]]> By: mike jhttp://www.dodbuzz.com/2010/02/03/coin-air-wing-in-the-wings/#comment-19594 mike j Fri, 05 Feb 2010 19:32:31 +0000 http://www.dodbuzz.com/?p=12884#comment-19594 That's wrong. Marine/ Navy Broncos did plenty of CAS, USAF did less. Combat loss rates for this aircraft were not excessive. Do you need the data spoon fed to you? Go read the article. That’s wrong. Marine/ Navy Broncos did plenty of CAS, USAF did less. Combat loss rates for this aircraft were not excessive. Do you need the data spoon fed to you? Go read the article.

]]> By: William C.http://www.dodbuzz.com/2010/02/03/coin-air-wing-in-the-wings/#comment-19589 William C. Fri, 05 Feb 2010 18:48:38 +0000 http://www.dodbuzz.com/?p=12884#comment-19589 Yet those OV-10s were doing observation and reconnaissance work and not CAS. If these things are going to be doing CAS they need a good degree of armor protection. The enemy may not have many MANPADs to use but they will gladly spray their rifles and machines guns in the air which can still bring down a light aircraft. Yet those OV-10s were doing observation and reconnaissance work and not CAS. If these things are going to be doing CAS they need a good degree of armor protection. The enemy may not have many MANPADs to use but they will gladly spray their rifles and machines guns in the air which can still bring down a light aircraft.

]]>