Comments on: Schwartz Shoots Down COIN Plane

By: GMan

GMan — Mon, 19 Dec 2011 13:20:28 +0000

Note: Our Air Force is by far the most advanced and trained of any, just because air to air scenarios are few and far in between doesn’t mean we don’t need it. Fact is we must have air superiority from a couple feet above the ground way out into the upper atmosphere. We need F22’s, F35’s, and other sophisticated aviation platforms, we also need COIN aircraft capable of loitering over target for a period of time. Air Force, Navy and my guys in the Corps saved our butt’s on many occasions. Just wish we had something that could have stuck around a little longer even after they dropped their ordinance…and old & slow A1 Skyraider would have been nice…I’ll settle for a Super Tacano.

Semper Fi

By: Gman

Gman — Mon, 19 Dec 2011 13:00:37 +0000

Super Tacano's are proven platforms another reason why the Navy is seriously looking into acquiring them, Our senior leadership has got to stop compartmentalizing and get their heads out of the box, lives depend on it. A1 Skyraider's, A37 Dragonfly's were work horses in Vietnam, ask any old timer grunt from that era counting on their firepower and loiter time over the battle. Mind you this isn't rocket science, it's about using the best tool for the job...the AT6 was designed primarily as a trainer, the Super Tacano was designed from the get go as a COIN platform...It has done an excellent job throughout the Southern Americas...So what if it's not home grown. it's an excellent COIN workhorse, that's all that matters.

By: GMan

GMan — Mon, 19 Dec 2011 12:35:55 +0000

Note: Mind you I'm not a COIN Aircraft expert just a former Infantry type: IMHO having a low and slow platform overhead such as a Super Tacano providing the kind of COIN air support ground elements count on when caught in a tight scenario is gold, believe me I have been there. Any air support would do for most of us on the ground, the simple fact is when you have something loitering above for a long period of time it truly is a force multiplier for the guys on the ground. F15, F16's, FA18's, AV8B's, Tornado's, Jaguars etc are excellent platforms but the simple fact is that you gotta get down and dirty in a CAS COIN environment. A10's are excellent platforms but our leadership has downsized our A10 fleet to the bone. Super Tacano's may be a bit lighter in payload but they can loiter, an expeditionary field closer to the fight would minimize a turnaround time. This would be an excellent platform for Army and Marine Corps COIN CAS believers....I would imagine a Super Tacano would be easier on our pocket book rather then an advance high tech fast mover like an F15, F16, or F22.

By: max

max — Wed, 19 May 2010 22:25:41 +0000

an AT-6 as a tactical trainer for our allies might actually be beneficial… for them of course. yea, it would be pointless to throw guns on a tiny prop trainer when we have fleets of other platforms that can already do that mission. our allies already send many of their pilots here to train on T-6s, so why not manufacture and sell them an airframe theyre familiar with?

By: max

max — Wed, 19 May 2010 22:16:57 +0000

hua!

By: max

max — Wed, 19 May 2010 22:14:37 +0000

…not to mention that we also use AC-130s for CAS as well. just sayin

By: orville

orville — Sat, 15 May 2010 23:42:35 +0000

hey guys.i flew 51s in korea and a 1s in nam. we did the job well and losst many aircraft to grown fire. we did the job that the fast movers had a penchent for missing the target most of the time and was a in that case a waste. of course that was a long time ago but the effects of the low and slow paid off. now if we could find a way for the currentbolw heads to get the hell out of the way and lets buy some of the [coin] aircraft. as someone said, elininate one [35] and we could have prehaps two or three wings of aircraft that works for the type of contact withthe bad guys that we need. i know from my own experience how those props work. just what do those idots in the pendegonthink these uav,s are powered by that do the most damage. o h well,what the hell?!

By: Fred

Fred — Sat, 15 May 2010 07:20:13 +0000

About the A-10 capability and understanding what change in its usefulness the upgrades taken after first Gulf war should read the book: Flying the A-10 in the gilf war.

Then you will understand the usefulness of countermeassures positioning and navigation aids on such platform.

By: Fred

Fred — Sat, 15 May 2010 07:12:06 +0000

Which organization in the world is the biggest terrorist organization? Which organization has killed and murdered most important leaders politicians and others “not wanted” individuals? I suggest you all to listen to former CIA chiefs and what they say happened in the 1960s in a country situated in a muddy river delta? Who supported trained financed and let the so called terrorists built up assets and money from drugs trafficing and even directly trained them in the now so called terrorist activities? The only difference between a terrorist and a “minuteman freedom fighter” is decided by who?

I say like the famous words of a famous Adolf:
–It is very fortunate that people do not think.

By: William C.

William C. — Sat, 15 May 2010 04:40:59 +0000

Sorry I meant to shouldn’t and not should.

By: William C.

William C. — Sat, 15 May 2010 04:39:55 +0000

I’m not saying we should try to get along, but we can afford the stuff and should have it regardless.

By: booboo

booboo — Sat, 15 May 2010 01:29:07 +0000

Dude, you know what you get with a COIN platform that you don’t get vs UAVs? PILOTS at risk! That’s what.

The AT-6L and a reaper even have the same weapons haul ability. (About 3K).

The only way this platform makes sense is if we want to give partners capability while keeping the good stuff (UAVs) for ourselves.

Good MOVE SCHWARTZ! (That man THINKS!)

By: William C.

William C. — Fri, 14 May 2010 16:22:00 +0000

Careerism and radical Christianity? What are you babbling about?

The USAF had to cut many platforms during the post Cold War cuts including the F-4G, F-111, and A-7. I am sure many in the USAF didn’t want to see those platforms go.

The reason F-16s suffered from inaccuracy in bombing runs was due to the fact that pilots were often attacking in a shallow dive with their engines at max. As a result they often reached Mach 1 or a bit faster. The computer assisted bombing sight displayed on the HUD wasn’t programmed to deal with dropping bombs at such speeds.

By: John

John — Fri, 14 May 2010 15:38:06 +0000

As long as we are looking for a cheap expendable low flying attack aircrat that can be used to replace and train foriegn pilots maybe we should consider the Russian Sukhoi Su 35 Frogfoot, I’m sure with a little fanagling the russians would be willing to sell the plane for $150,000. After all Russia, is desperate to make some real money off anything that is in’t nailed down.

By: dave

dave — Fri, 14 May 2010 05:40:56 +0000

So what happend to the old T-34(D) model. 750 shaft horse, stations all along under the wing, a proven airframe, sold a bunch of them down “South” ???????????

By: David

David — Fri, 14 May 2010 04:55:46 +0000

A’men!

By: R Mac

R Mac — Fri, 14 May 2010 02:21:35 +0000

Bottom line, only our fancy birds and wings on our chests matter not the mission. The grunts can die on the ground for all that we care, so what if only 10% of F-16s hit their targets in the first Gulf War, CNN still loved us. As long as the public likes out all jet, single cockpit aircraft and the press buys the bill of goods we’ll sell it. I remember when the F-16 replaced the F-4 Wild Weasels and the AF Chief bragged that they were only loosing 25% capability by doing so. All that just to get rid of Navigators. Now instead of trolling for SAMs they get a beep, shot, and run.
I’m an ex-Air Force officer who watched this developed over the past 40 years. All the pilot run AF cares about is careerism and radical Christianity anymore. The mission, and especially the grunt on the ground be damned.

By: AFPilot

AFPilot — Fri, 14 May 2010 01:56:37 +0000

First of all: T-37s were scrapped because the engines are useless. 20 second spool up time and very little thrust. They had to keep the engines spooled up on landing just to have a chance to go around. So stop with that nonsense. The air force i am in, which i fly for, needs more CAS platforms. Everyone knows this. But 90% of the pilots I fly with and the missions I fly are CAS. We simply don't do too much fighting air to air these days. Make that no air to air. But China is there, as is the former Soviet block (who just loves to dish out aircraft to anyone buying) so the threat is real, and it is there. We need to stay on teh forefront of air dominance. It's simply getting expensive. It's even harder to do now that my tax dollars are going to pay for helath care for people who shouldn't have had that last heart attack burger. The money is there, we are still a wealthy nation, but people are so provincial they simply don't see the big picture. If everyone saying the AF is useless could spend just ONE day in a combat situation, where bombs on target means living soldiers, I think this nation would be singing a different tune. More money for CAS, and something survivable. Rotors of any sort aren't survivable. Slow mover prop jobs are a little more so but not something I'd bet money on. And you know why we stay above 10000 feet? because then we can put the bombs where they tell us. I can read a license plate from the darn stratosphere, you can bet your boots I can see where I'm putting the bombs. So there's my nickel in the grass.

By: Don

Don — Fri, 14 May 2010 00:44:08 +0000

If you knuckle-draging neanderthal Army types were any dumber you’d be real dangerous.

Luckily your just stupid enough to understand.…nothing about the application of air power.

Robin Olds — your posts are an embarrassment to your namesake.

Byron Skinner — “AF doesn’t go below 10,000 feet” — really? If that’s what you think you’re more stupid than I gave you credit for.

Joseph — do you know any A-10 pilots? I do — and NO THEY DON’T HATE HIGH TECH ELECTRONICS. They make the aircraft more effective.

Steve — You’re right. The Army will never field their own COIN aircraft. Oh wait, don’t they already have OVER 25,000 AIRCRAFT?!? If they did try to field one every E-5 and up would have to have their own. Like every O-5 commander who has a driver, an aide, a cook, a staff. All so the AF can deploy Airmen to drive convoys for them.

By: Joseph

Joseph — Thu, 13 May 2010 23:12:19 +0000

I have worked on AF aircraft for 30 years now. The AF loves the high tech. stuff. They don’t even like the A10. It is too primitive–but it kicks butt, and works great. So they decided to try to pack it full of high tech. electronics. The pilot’s hate that. Some like to fly by the seat of their pants.
There is a definite need for low flying, propellar driven, hang over the target, infantry close support weapons platforms. Just don’t look to the AF for this anytime soon. The generals don’t respond to the real military needs. They are stuck in their own world, like politicians in DC, and are only interested in the high tech. stuff. Sad!!!