AF Needs COIN Plane: RAND

AF Needs COIN Plane: RAND

Though late to the irregular warfare game, after considerable cajoling from Defense Secretary Robert Gates and now with an air chief with a real interest in the subject, Gen. Norton Schwartz, the Air Force has begun, albeit slowly, embracing elements of the irregular warfare mission.

So far, the service has made an admirable effort, according to a new report from RAND’s Project Air Force, but it has a long way to go to adjust to the future irregular warfare world. To get there more quickly and more effectively, RAND proposes a wide menu of options to better institutionalize the irregular warfare (IW) mindset, boost partnering with foreign air forces and provide more forward air controllers to work with small, widely distributed ground units.

One of the authors of the new report, “Courses of Action for Enhancing U.S. Air Force “Irregular Warfare” Capabilities,” is David Ochmanek, former RAND researcher and now Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Force Development.


The Air Force is going to be in both Iraq and Afghanistan for the long haul, so they might as well settle in and prepare for heavy involvement in flying close air support, ISR and training both the Iraqi and Afghan air corps, RAND says. The Iraqi military lacks a functional air arm, which means the U.S. Air Force will be Iraq’s Air Force for many years.

To help build out the Iraqi and Afghan air forces will demand a lot more airmen serving as advisors, RAND says. The advisor training pipeline should be expanded to support around 800 advisors in Iraq and Afghanistan along with another 400 with Air Force Special Operations Command. The latter initiative includes adding another combat aviation squadron in AFSOC. Ultimately, advisory training should be expanded to train 1,500 advisors for both the general purpose and special operations wings in the USAF.

The Air Force needs a new COIN plane, RAND says. It should stand up a dedicated COIN air wing equipped with about 100 of the currently undefined “OA-X” light attack aircraft. Such an aircraft would greatly facilitate partnering with Iraqi and Afghan aviators, while lowering the costs and reducing excessive flying hour demands for high-performance aircraft such as the F-16.

Additionally, as “partners are more likely to want aircraft that U.S. forces are flying to great effect,” building and operating a COIN aircraft would simultaneously boost support for ground troops while “whetting the appetite of partners who are prematurely looking to acquire high-performance jet aircraft such as the F-16.”

RAND suggest adding 30 more manned MC-12 ISR aircraft to the service’s “Project Liberty,” which is fielding 37 of the new aircraft to increase coverage and responsiveness to ground commanders. The Air Force should also develop and deploy a next-generation, low observable gun ship to support special operators. It could be either manned or unmanned and should have a large magazine and long loiter time. A new “low observable mobility platform” is also needed for insertion, extraction and resupply of SOF. The new AFSOC gunship and mobility platform would be small buys, around 24 aircraft for each.

One of the more promising initiatives RAND proposes is to add Joint Terminal Attack Controllers (JTACs) on the ground in Iraq and Afghanistan. This is one area where the Air Force can really make a difference in distributed operations. The air controller training pipeline must be expanded. Interestingly, RAND says building a new COIN aircraft may help. “Equipping some units with a dedicated CAS platform for COIN would support the increased requirements for live CAS training of Air Force JTACs and their Army counterparts.”

To increase the effectiveness and efficiency of air support to distributed and decentralize ground troops the Air Force must “embed air expertise forward” among the Army’s small units, RAND says. This would require the creation of IW “air effects” cells, led by a colonel with staff, at corps, division and joint task force levels to facilitate air support planning and coordination (the Air Force loves to talk about “effects”). Also, “air planning” cells should be beefed up at the brigade level and potentially the battalion level as well.

One of the biggest challenges the Air Force faces is the service’s “institutional mindset,” RAND says; in other words, the powerful “fighter mafia” that favors spending on air superiority fighters rather than a “low-and-slow” IW aircraft. If the Air Force is serious about embracing IW as a core competency, it must bump IW way up in priority by ensuring becoming an IW specialist isn’t a “kiss of death” for a USAF career. Selecting top officers for advisory missions would be a big step in the right direction (the Army hasn’t even gotten this one right, so I wouldn’t expect the Air Force to anytime soon).

Through speeches, policy guidance and weapons programs, the Air Force leadership must convince airmen that IW will remain a core mission even after the Iraq drawdown. And, as with any large bureaucratic organization, changing the mindset requires an additional layer of management, to “monitor and direct IW activities in the Air Force with unity of purpose.”

RAND proposes three alternatives: create a new directorate in the Air Force A-staffs (e.g., A3/5); or, create a new deputy chief of staff organization for IW headed by a two or three star; or, stand up a new division-plus sized IW organization by expanding the IW Task Force and putting it under a two star.

Join the Conversation

As mentioned before I’m all for it. If you get a chance check out carter aviation, they have some pretty nice prototypes that are VTOL from a four passenger with a turbo diesel to a 727 size that can carry 2 strykers, or 1 M1 tank, or 200 troops. Doing most of it out of thier own pocket which I like better than us flipping the bill. Only drawback is it must be under 500 knts speed to work, but that is fine for what we are talking about here as long as they dont get money hungry with our tax dollars. I still dont have an issue using the TUCANO turbo’s from Brazil either as a cots item as long as thier quality pays out.

Ummm..Carter’s 4 passenger hasn’t flown yet, and everything bigger is nothing more than drawings, concepts, cartoons, and wishful thinking

Good Evening Folks,

Buy a bunch of them, they are cheap. The only problem that I see is finding any USAF pilots who are willing to fly in combat, or even go below 10,000 feet. Those fellows have guns down there.

It’s better to “earn” your DFC’s, Air Medal’s etc. and merit badges for your uniform in Cheech AFB Nv. War from inside a double wide is he**.

ALLONS,
Byron Skinner

Where will the Air Force find the individuals for the Advisor training who can logically be expected to become reasonably fluent in the foreign languages, customs, mores, and mindsets of those who they will be expected to “advise?”

And, how can the Air Force hold onto the trained ones? They’ll be worth much more than their Air Force salaries.

I don’t know about the F-16 pilots but I know for a fact that the F-15E Strike Eagle pilots routinely fly well below 10,000 feet. Most JTAC/TACP-directed approaches usually call for around 5,000 feet. A few pilots have recorded instances of being as low as 79 feet AGL.

Last year we lost an F-15E when the pilot flew too low to the ground in Afghanistan.

I’m sure A-10 pilots operate around the same altitudes, if not lower as their aircraft are better suited.

Get your facts straight before shooting off your mouth.

If they are flying that low for CAS, they might as well use a prop…they might crash less.

Yep, but we still don’t have them fielded. I’m all for having them, it’ll save the service life hours on the more expensive birds and keep them in service longer.

Though I don’t think loggies would like the idea of expanding the logistics footprint of an airbase with more aircraft, supply and support equipment.

Like Boomer, I have no problem with a purchase of Super Tucano if the Air Force decided thats what they want, but I think they should also take a very serious look at the AT-6B Texan II. It is already in service as a trainer, so there would be the possibility of being able to take advantage of already existing support infrastructure. Its roughly the same general concept as the Super Tucano, but I admit that I know little of the relative merits of one over the other. Still, I like the idea of using a variation of an already in service airframe if at all possible. The most important aspect of this for me is that they need to start buying them NOW!

The AT-6B is not the same aircraft as the trainer version. From what I gather it’s still more “sibling” than “cousin”, but has evolved pretty far from just a T-6 II with an EO turret and some hardpoints. I’m waiting to see what % commonality remains.

bah… I was looking in the wrong places…

From the press release:

“The new T-6 derivative, while incorporating structural improvements and increased electrical power generation required for the LAAR mission, still retains approximately 95 percent overall commonality with the baseline T-6B.”

And I’d also like the Air Force to start using them, like, yesterday, but that’s when this “production representative” aircraft just had its first flight, and there’s enough difference in the entrants to the LAAR competition that I’d like to see a fly-off before they buy. 95% commonality is really good, though, if it’s true.

When Barry gets finished all we will haveare these stupid little prop planes. The chicomms and Russians finally have their boy in the white house.

Bye bye air superiority.

I have seen videos of thier protype flying and doing take offs and landings. Agree that the larger versions are still just computer concepts yet to be proven. But I still like the fact they are going at it on thier own and once perfected will look for buyers the way it used to be without the government having to fund everything up front. Even if they dont get to thier final big bird — I guarantee you that the cartels will be buying a lot of them just like they do the personal trans ocean submarines built by US subs down in Florida.

Obama didn’t come up with this and it is in no way intended to replace jets, the Airforce is not limmited on the number of aircraft it can have like the Navy. The Marines have been scrambling to get this capability back ever sense they lost the capability after Desert Storm where they proved to still be of great value. Plenty of arenalin junkies will volunteer for this program, flight training will be easier but I bet SERE training for these pilots will intesify as it should because at lower levels and speeds the need may be there for survival skills.

What ever happened to “service” in the Armed Services? You get a generous compensation, a VERY VERY short (~20 years), and you don’t have to pay for any of your training.…..who exactly would compete against them?

The answer is obvious, start a new air wing that focuses on cross-military cooperation. You’d actually find they’re cheaper to train than a jet jockeys, as prop wing training is much less expensive. As far as language goes, the AF already trains its air traffic controllers at DLI; just send a few pilots.…..

good point Trophy, but loggies bitch about everything. Tell them to shut up, and get it done. You’ll find they’ll protest about how impossible it is, only to get it done in a few weeks with minmal problems.

They’re talented and professional like most of our Armed Forces, we’ve just let the primadonna in them come out too much.……Imagine if we accepted as much lip from the infantry??

The first sentence in this article is terrible. After I put everything back in order, it began to make sense. But this guy needs to attend a writing seminar or pick up a style manual.

You’re so right, how did we not see it?! Giving our boys the right tools to fight the wars were in plays right into the hands of a failed and failing states! BRILLIANT! How didn’t I see this before?!

The increased loiter time and ordinance capacity, the decreased maintenance/training/fuel costs.…..THOSE WERE JUST A PLOY!! Thanks Lands, you’ve shot use great insight. Quickly lads, put back on the tinfoil hats before the CIA steals our thoughts with their mind beams!

There are a lot of things wrong with this article on a number of levels.

1. Poor grammar. Here’s one example: “One of the biggest challenges faced the Air Force faces is”. It’s called SPELL CHECK. Use it often, it makes you sound more credible.

2. It’s a review of a study by RAND, and the lines between the RAND study and Grant’s own analysis are not clear.

-“RAND suggest adding 30 more manned MC-12 ISR aircraft to the service’s “Project Liberty,” which is fielding 37 of the new aircraft to increase coverage and responsiveness to ground commanders. [Here’s where the lines blur] The Air Force should also develop and deploy a next-generation, low observable gun ship to support special operators. It could be either manned or unmanned and should have a large magazine and long loiter time. A new “low observable mobility platform” is also needed for insertion, extraction and resupply of SOF. The new AFSOC gunship and mobility platform would be small buys, around 24 aircraft for each.”

3. It’s not clear whether Grant is only reporting on what the RAND report says, or whether he’s chiming in his own analysis. That makes it hard for the reader to know whether he is simply summarizing what the report says, or whether he is further expounding on the analysis contained in the RAND report. Additionally, I’m not sure about the other readers, but I’m not confident that Grant is a subject matter expert on air power.

He has had a recent visit from Santa Clause — lots of modification clauses in his sentences. He did not grow up writing for newspapers.

Could this be Byron who is expressing doubt in UAVs??? Perhaps we should clue him in to the fact that Afghanistan is at a pretty high altitude, and his statements would be clearer if he said “10,00 feet AGL”. He should know that there is a waiting list to get into fighters, and all of them like to get down on the deck.

And the airframes might be cheap but it is the log trail that will take all of the money. We would need trained maintenance people, training plans, instructor pilots, spare parts, etc etc. The only way we could hope to do this is to adapt an existing airframe so we have a head start on all of the support.

Wow, it seems that everyone gets everything! Can we also include a pony for everyone in that list?

Dave S has it correct.…STUPID article.

“The Air Force should also develop and deploy a next-generation, low observable gun ship to support special operators. It could be either manned or unmanned and should have a large magazine and long loiter time.”

I would argue that this is not only necessary for special forces but as all units operate further afield local air resouces become increasingly important. Thus an affordable short take off and landing, CAS and observation platfrom becomes something to think about. vSTOL, Box Wing, Ducted Props, M230 30mm Chain Gun on belly turret: Some images of what this might look like can be found at: http://​www​.architectswanderlust​.com/​?​p​=16.

Good Morning Folks,

To Trophy. One exception doesn’t disprove the rule. As for the A-10 the AF never wanted the A-10 and sent all A-10 Units into the NG before the first Gild War. Now that the A-190 has proven itself in combat where the fighter jocks haven’t the A-10 is now welcomed into mother AF.

The Houston. I’m still Gun-Ho on UAV’s, they are the right platform for now and for the future. My point is that I think the Jocks who fly the UAV’s should be in theater with the Soldiers and Marines who relay on them. The air crews of Army Warriors are in theater …(well that’s the Army and not the Air Force so I would agree it’s unfair to compare.) oops sorry to embarrass the Air Force. They should have to go in the same chow line and explain why the didn’t get it right to the guys and gals on the ground. Instead at Cheech AFB that when a shift is over it’s down to the Casino Buffet and trying to button hole some tourist to pick up the tab for a hero with their blue uniforms and rows of fruit salad and merit badges.

As the Sec. of Defense said himself, a former AF officer as I recall, “The Air Force is not doing its share in Iraq and Afghanistan”. True then true now.

ALLONS,
Byron Skinner

I agree. Produce 200 of this aircraft, and use it with drones, Apache helicopters and A-10 on counterinsurgency in Afhganistan, Pirates in Somalia and other counterinsurgency around the world. And use, reserve and maintain the A-10, f-117aF-14 Tomcat,f-15,F-15SE,F-16 Fighting Falcons, F-22, F-35,drones and Apache helicopters, Sea Fighter, Sea Hawk helicopters on high profile conflict and future threat, like Iran conflct, N. Korea conflct, China-Taiwan future threats.

Byron, I would be curious to know why you would unnecessarily want to put these Airmen in harm’s way when they can better perform their mission from where they are. Having them where they are is part of the ADVANTAGE of the UAV system, not a bad thing!

Byron must have memory problems. In every discussion about programs like the F-22, F-35, NGB, and so forth Byron says “cancel it in favor of UCAVs” yet now he is accusing the USAF of being cowardly for using such UAVs.

Actually a great deal of their research was funded by the US Government (US Army, DARPA, NASA). I have been aware of Carter for a number of years now. They are progressing at a snails pace. Their hoped for niche in civilian aviation evaporated when the economy went in the toilet. Currently their future lays in the UAV arena as signified by their recent licencing agreement with AAI (who practically only exist because of government funded evaluations and projects)

Basically, if the AF is serious about irregular warfare capabilities, the last thing they need to do is become involved in unproven technologies, and focus on available, developed airframes for the time being.

Good Evening Folks,

The view from 10,000 ft. is a lot different the from 10 feet.

One of the oddities of military service is the implied cass system. In combat the rifleman is on the bottom. He is the go to guy for any sh** detail that comes along, after weapons maintenance, a shower and change of clothes, hot chow and some sleep he really has nothing to do but get into trouble on the base camp side of the wire. To be honest most Infantrymen and Marine Riflemen would rather be on the other side of the wire and a way from the REMF’s or in polite company “Pukes”.

After a few weeks in the bush resentment really builds up toward those who have a bed to go to every night, have food that’s not eaten form a can or a pouch like a dog gets, and quite frankly getting shot at a mortared 24/7 can get just a wee bit depressing when not all are sharing the experience.

It is interesting that in a war everybody wants to stay as far away from the enemy as possible, its after the war when the lying and bragging starts by the REMF’s about how they did this and that.

I’ve been going to Regimental reunions now for about 10 years and its not had to tell the guys who fought and those that didn’t.

And you da** right any I’m 100% in favor of any robot that can go in instead of a rifleman. I’m sure its a lot different when a UAV goes down then taking a hit yourself or putting a squad mate in a body bag.

The Navy and Air Force are our rides. The Navy leaves us on the beach, and goes back to the safety of his ship, the Air Force drops us off at some forward air strip and then gets the he** out of there. The rifleman never forgets this.

ALLONS,
Byron Skinner

Most F16 pilots are afraid to drop below 20,000. The AT6B would be the perfect solution to the grunts needs just like the A1 Skyraider. Might also be great protection for our PJ’s when making their rescue’s.

An Army needs those “REMFs” to operate. If nobody is hauling supplies, none of those Marines can fight. If nobody is flying around, none of those Marines can get a 500 pound JDAM dropped on the enemy. If nobody is keeping vehicles running back at base, everybody is going to be walking around on foot.

This is another case of “Back to the Future”. I remember when the USAF upgraded the T-37 to the A-37 in the 1960’s for the Vietnam War. The A-37 had a minigun in the nose with hard points for rockets, bombs, and fuel. The USAF sent the plane to the Reserves/National Guard after the war then later transferred them to 3rd world allied air forces. The plane was never an Air Force favorite, but our allies appreciated its speed, payload, and low cost of ownership. I foresee some planes going to the USAF, but many more going to the Air Forces of Iraq, Afghanistan, and Lebanon.

stealth version of j-11 : http://​blog​.sina​.com​.cn/​p​w​d​y​zyz http://​blog​.sina​.com​.cn/​s​/​b​l​o​g​_​5​e​7​5​0​1​3​1​0​1​0​0​h​q​t​9.h…

Just build more A-10s Show me an Eagle driver that wants to go nose to nose in the bushes with a Hog.

Why are these planes being considered for the AF? I can think of at least branch’s that would be more effective in using them. And not afraid to use them as they are intended.

The constant USAF bashing really gets tired after awhile…

You must be a pretty unhappy guy.….becasue your thought patterns are seriously off the reservation.

The plans are easy to find„,P51, P47, and the douglas sky raider„ The old SPAD was great and could get so close you would feel the prop wash.. SSG ED

More to the point, how can the Air Force fashion a career path for people with such skills? Everything from incentive pay rules to educational requirements for promotion is geared to creating what amounts to a funnel/sieve to produce ‘generalist’ generals — those ambitious individuals who have accumulated multiple tours of 2 or 3 years’ duration while jumping from one ‘career-broadening’ assignment to the next.– and to winnow out those who want to simply do one less ambitious thing well, and keep at it for a long time e.g., fly airplanes. The biggest hurdle facing the Advisor concept is — how do you convince somebody to do something that is not likely to get him promoted, not likely to give him much recognition in the USAF at large, and not likely to save him when the next force reduction comes around…

OV-10 Super Bronco is the best design, the aircraft was designed specifically for the COIN role, whereas all the other aircraft are converted baic single-engined trainers. Fit the OV-10D airframe with updated electronics, engines and weapons it will be the wisest choice rather than any of the other designs.

Bugger the Air Force fighter jocks and the kiss of death to an Air Force career from flying something that doesn’t go faster than the sound barrier that the article mentions…

Let the Army fly them, I’m sure theres enough NCOs with civilian flight experience on cessna 172s and piper cherokees etc who can be quickly run through a flight air-ground combat school and loaded into COIN craft.

The Army can be trusted to get there and support their fellow grunts under fire, and being in the same service, no inter-service rivalry bullshit to slow the response down.

Ctu the USAF doesn’t do anything nonsense. There are more than enough examples from VIetnam up till today to prove otherwise

Byron,
I thought some of your posts were intellectually suspect before, but you have now proven yourself gigantically ignorant as well.

I know my pilots routinely fly far below both 10k and 5k. Try 50 feet (and lower) with mini’s and .50 cal’s blazing.

How about nuclear powered Global Hawk armed with different variant of missile? Check this out:http://​www​.newscientist​.com/​a​r​t​i​c​l​e​/​d​n​3​406.

What are we still doing in Iraq? I taught they already have their own government? Should’nt they take care of their own airforce. Why not just sell them 1000 F-14;F-16 and go home.

GrayEagle-6th SOS does the job currrently.

The ultimate CAS is the AC variants.
Dropping bombs on targets isn’t CAS, it is interdiction and strike.
Two way communication between the ground and air with long loiter.
UAVs can not do CAS until the ground controller can talk to the manuever guy via FM.
Enough with the man love for the A-10 and AH-64s. these are tank killers that we have shoved into COIN. They don’t do it well, just better than everything else we have. 30mm lethality sucks in open desert.
We had this figured out in Vietnam A-36Bs and OV-10s.
Less JTAC more FAC-As. The JTAC is nothing more than an embarrasing reminder that the AF can’t integrate with the Army for crap. An E-3 Airman on the ground is REQUIRED to get ordance on target in anything but in extremis. This is support?
The Air Force wants the money and power but not the mission.
They have failed in every aspect and 9 years into Afghanistan, still haven’t relearned lessons from Vietnam.
F-16s and A-10s as primary FAC-As and –9 Reapers listed primary mission as CAS.
Please.

*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