Home » Air » Will Mattis Push COIN Plane?

Will Mattis Push COIN Plane?

By Greg Grant Thursday, July 29th, 2010 2:59 pm
Posted in Air, Policy

At his confirmation hearing before the Senate Armed Services Committee earlier this week, newly nominated Central Command head Gen. James Mattis reaffirmed his support for a turboprop aircraft to provide ground pounders with long loitering time, on-call recon and strike. The project called “Imminent Fury” was run out of the Navy’s irregular warfare office.

Mattis described it as a test program to see if inexpensive turboprops could replace the much more costly jets currently used in counterinsurgency battles. As we’ve described it before, the sought after design falls somewhere between the Vietnam era OV-10 Bronco and A-1 Skyraider.

While the Navy’s request for additional funds for the program was recently denied, Mattis said he’s still trying to build support for the concept, to at least gather data that could inform future spending decisions.

He’s going to have his work cut out for him as sources from the Navy’s irregular warfare community recently told Defense Tech the program is as dead as Julius Caesar. Who killed it? The Air Force, we’re told, and its powerful fighter community, which was not at all interested in sticking their pilots in a low and slow ground support aircraft. The Air Force is still having trouble choking down the “drone driver” mission.

As we wrote a couple of months ago, Air Force Chief of Staff, Gen. Norton Schwartz, shot down his own idea for an irregular warfare wing, arguing that the current, and future, inventory of jet aircraft can perform any and all close air support missions that a new, light strike fighter could. He could not envision replacing existing F-15, F-16 and A-10, or future F-35s for that matter, with a light strike aircraft.

Mattis made an important point in front of the SASC earlier this year: “Today’s approach of loitering multi-million dollar aircraft and using a system of systems procedure for the approval and employment of airpower is not the most effective use of aviation fires in this irregular fight,”

Yet, without Air Force buy-in, it’s hard to see this effort goes anywhere. I’m not sure Mattis’ powers of persuasion will have much impact on the Air Force’s dominant constituency.

Share |

Join the Conversation

	CharlesHouston July 29th, 2010 at 7:09 pm That role is more easily filled by drones, finding a lot of money right now for another limited mission aircraft would be tough. The AF is scrambling for money for the F-22 and F-35 and will not tolerate any distraction.
	Byron Skinner July 29th, 2010 at 3:48 pm Good Afternoon Folks, I’m once again with CharlesHouson on this, what I think he is saying if the Air Force can’t be sold on COIN aircraft they are not going to fly. The Navy with their current budget problems are not going to buy any Marine toys like this. The CIA and Special Operations Command, well they have their own ways of buying what they want. This is as CharlesHouston said a UAV mission, and the CIA after a brief reset for new ISR packages and weapon pods is doing a great job in Pakistan, with the Reaper. Interesting no Airpower Summery since about July 6th. Is the Air Force take some leave time? ALLONS, Byron Skinner
	Reed July 29th, 2010 at 9:52 pm Look at how Apache’s and armed Blackhawks are used in strafing runs. This is clearly an Army task. UAV’s are fancy but not responsive enough when suppression is needed now. UAV’s work well for recon but armed UAV’s wouldn’t work for small unit support with the exception of special ops. The Commander on the ground doesn’t want two Hellfires. He needs guns, bombs, hellfires, rockets, and then he wants guns again. You get that with Apache’s but without the loiter time and at high cost. The cheap, slow and ugly Air Tractor option would be a little less turf stealing to the Air Force than T-6’s would be. This is like the FCA/LCA/JCA C27J. Army needs it, Air Force doesn’t but the Air Force steals it with the purpose of killing it.
	Charley July 29th, 2010 at 10:17 pm AT-6B has the advantage of a second crewmember — I’d take that over the Air Tractor.
	William C. July 29th, 2010 at 10:22 pm Despite the usual USAF bashing by Byron and others, there are certainly pilots willing to fly these things. I have my doubts when comparing such a COIN aircraft to the A-10. Yet if it can be made reasonably survivable (protection from small arms and ECM to throw off MANPADS) it may be a good investment. Perhaps the Army should be allowed to operate certain manned observation aircraft like the old OV-1 and OV-10. And naturally, nothing is wrong with these carrying a few rockets and gun pods. Also before you bash the resistance of USAF leadership to this thing, consider their position. Gates stopped production of the F-22A which was set to be the backbone of our air-superiority force for at least 30 years. They haven’t had any luck with a new bomber program (and those B-52s and B-1s aren’t getting any younger), and the F-35 is now more critical than ever. You cannot keep these F-16s flying forever.
	Reed July 29th, 2010 at 11:12 pm A-10 is a great platform that has been under supported by the USAF. I think the issue is finding something cheaper, uses forward airfields, and has a longer loiter time for Afghanistan type operations. The best solution is a turboprop of some sort. They don’t fit the Air Force mould though, and like you note, the Air Force has to fight for every fast jet. Give them to the Army, the USAF doesn’t have to budget for them and the soldier gets better support. I’m not anti-USAF, I’m just against the USAF playing games against Army Aviation.
	billford1 July 30th, 2010 at 12:35 am I agree. We should build an upgraded fly-by-wire A-10 with lots of gadgets to screw up Manpads and stop big bullets. In Viet Nam lots of FAC planes were eaten up by ground fire. I want something that’s fast, easy to fly, shoots 30mm rounds and lots of other goodies but is hard to hit.
	roland July 30th, 2010 at 5:08 am I agree with the idea on this coin planes for Afghanistan and Pakistan, so we can place most of our high tech planes in a more concern areas like the Korean peninsula, middle east and on our own country’s borders. Our soldiers in Afghanistan still needed the UAV’s. Also we could use the help of our allies so we will not be so streach out.
	roland July 30th, 2010 at 5:11 am Whatever happens to the $ 1 billion dollar russian helicopters our army bought from the Russians?
	Maybe-I-know July 30th, 2010 at 9:03 am “Light attack aircraft” = cheap. Dead Pilot = not cheap. There is no benefit for a “light attack aircraft”. Good CAS = survivable, long loiter, lots of firepower. There is no way we can get this for cheap. Absolutely no way. The AF should continue investing in the AC-130 or A-10 platform (don’t think we can afford all nor do I think it makes sense). Find ways to improve the A-10s loiter time or the AC-130s survivability and you got yourself an excellent CAS platform for low to medium intensity conflicts. This will allow the fighters and bombers do what they do best.
	CharlesHouston July 30th, 2010 at 3:04 pm An available solution is, as Reed points out so eloquently, the venerable A-10. A prop plane would be ok but where would the money come from, even to adapt the AT-6B? The A-10 is an aircraft which the USAF (as a 28 year vet of the USAF I have some insight) has never supported since it does not fit into the fighter/bomber/cargo mindset. I love helicopters (and one of my brothers is an Army aviator currently at Bagram) but they are thin skinned. Army aviation has some of the answer but when the opposition is tough you need someone there to drop in some napalm and “cook them down” a little. What happened to the additional Marine C-130 gunship conversions by the way? I would love to see a 2 person A-10 which would have to depend on refueling for sufficient loiter time, but would be an awesome close air support asset. Sigh. It would not use forward airfields but what is the crew gonna do on them, land and have coffee with the ground commanders?
	StopWastingMyTax$ July 30th, 2010 at 4:08 pm Good CAS also = available on the battlefield. Is it fair to say that AC-130’s & A-10’s, while both very effective, will be less able to operate from remote, forward, unimproved locations, than Super Tucanos? Cheap and effective, means less forward logistics footprint as well. I’m sure warfighters will appreciate that. And to the people that want to drop hate on this aircraft because it is susceptible to small arms fire, couldn’t you make the same argument for Apaches, Kiowas, and Little Birds? Come on people, we should be ashamed of ourselves for not providing better CAS for the boots on the ground. Also note, while a Super Tucano is drawing enemy small arms fire, the enemy small arms fire is not directed at the troops on the ground. In fact, the enemy is exposing thmselves to return fire from our troops — helping them win battles.
	Byron Skinner July 30th, 2010 at 2:24 pm Good Morning Folks, I kinda agree with CharlesHouston here, again. The problem though is that there is a lack or air activity in the war zones. The air Power summary which is a daily, which went from a daily posted report regardless of activity, it disappeared in May since June has only been posted irregularly and it appears the AF only posts when their is sufficient air activity to report. Meanwhile the CIA in Pakistan and in North Easter Iraq is having a lot of good days since returning for a reset of the Reapers. One of the first was a coordinated two plane attack that fired six Hellfire II’s between them, and scored 16 kills of Taliban. The last Airpower Summary was posted on July 5th. where the AF reported an incredible 108 Combat Air Support sorties, 82 manned ISR missions. 54 refueling sorties with 213 refuelings and a rare appearance of a single B-1B sortie (ISR). Since this overwhelming show of air power there has been nothing. In short it appears that the AF is only a few making camino appearances in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. One airframe not mentioned and could be the reason for the AF’s coolness toward a COIN dedicated single engine plane is the emergence of the C-27J.s In mid June the first C-27J unit was deployed to the war zones (for obvious reasons I won’t give any unit numbers or home AFB) but they were/are attached to 6th. Special Operations Air Expeditionary Advisory Group. The AC-27J “Stinger” with a GAU-12. and 40mm Bushmaster and with external ordinance possibilities of GBU-44, Viper Strike, Hellfire II, Sidewinder and 250lb. SD JADAM II’s could have been part of the air package that was deployed. Yesterday the C-27J Squdrons home bases was posted by the AF they will be Beale AFB, Robin AFB and Whiteman AFB. This appears to be a very formable weapons package and it looks like the C-27J (AC-27J’s) will be bought in large enough numbers to be of use. ALLONS, Byron Skinner
	EGUL Guy July 30th, 2010 at 6:27 pm How about getting your facts straight. The light attack effort for the USAF was written by fighter aviators, championed by fighter aviators, and would have been manned by fighter aviators. Bill Gertz of the Washington Times has it exactly right — the effort was crushed by congressional staff from Kansas — who would rather that US forces not get any light aircraft at all if they couldn’t get a Beechcraft — and there is only one Beechcraft prototype with combat systems and it has no precision capability. Someday it will be a good plane — but the Super Tucano is combat proven, today.
	Eagle July 30th, 2010 at 6:48 pm Amusing to see the ground swell of ground force advocates now becoming rabid proponents of air power to do their bidding, instead of for more/improved ground ops forces which they have claimed as THE element of war winning. Perhaps they have finally awakened to the facts of airpower in this 21st Century era of globally dispersed conlficts and war? Most of the ground-oriented experts have it only partly right concerning aspects of air power they advocate.
	Reed July 30th, 2010 at 9:41 pm The ground commander could care less where his fire support comes from, he just wants it timely and effective.
	Insider July 31st, 2010 at 1:08 am Bywrong…thx for providing amusement from an otherwise dull blog. Your silly AF bashing is occasionally funny but mostly ill informed and lacking in basic understanding of operational art. Mattis and COIN aircraft? Only with Bywrong logic would the AF buy a “COIN” aircraft in numbers that is extremely vulnerable to MANPADS and AAA? AF sorties are down for good reason…likely collateral damage issues with the Afghan strategy. You say the AF wanted to walk away from the A-10? The A-10 does good work in COIN & low intensity war…the “Hog” can be employed in medium intensity fights with care.…and that’s you dose of reality for today
	@Earlydawn July 31st, 2010 at 6:49 am The cross-branch bleed is getting a little crazy. So the Navy now operates land-based counter-insurgency aircraft to support the Army, and the Marines want some too? When will the Coast Guard get its own land combat component?
	Rick W July 31st, 2010 at 2:41 pm Why not operate it from forward airfields? The A-10 was specifically designed to be able to take off from even unimproved (in other words dirt) fields. It cannot lift a full load under those conditions, but it can certainly carry enough ordinance to do massive damage. Further more, Army engineers could certainly improve a roadway or other solid surface very quickly (as in a matter of hours). The problem here is not with the plane — it is with the AIRFORCE. The Airforce doesn’t operate from unimproved firelds so the A-10 will not be found there.
	Rick W July 31st, 2010 at 3:06 pm And here is your dose of reality for the day. The Airforce has been trying to kill the A-10 since before it came into service, but Congress would not let them. The reasons they gave were the exact same crap that you are spouting against the COIN plane. According the the Airforce the A-10 was going to be a very limited use pilot killer extremely vulnerable to MANPADS and AAA whose mission could be more safely permormed by almost any other aircraft in the inventory. In fact the Airforce wanted out of the A-10 so badly that they actually agreed to give it to the Army back in the early 1980’s. Unfortunately for the Army Desert Storm came along before the agreement could be carried through. The ‘limited use’ ‘easily replaced’ ‘pilot killer’ was responsible for destroying more enemy vehicles than anyother weapon system on the battlefield. And despite flying missions that were far more dangerous than anything the rest of the Airforce was doing it almost always brought its pilot home. Sometimes with damage that would have destroyed anything else in the fleet.
	Rick W July 31st, 2010 at 3:19 pm That collateral damage you mention could be greatly reduced if the pilots actulally came down low enough and slow enough the see what they were shooting at, but that would increase the risk to Airforce pilots, so we can’t do that. We could drastically cut the operating expense and long response time for air support if the A-10 was operated from the sort of forward deployment it was built for, but the Airforce does not operate that way, so it won’t happen.
	Byron Skinner July 31st, 2010 at 2:22 pm Good MOrning Folks, To the coward Insider who has no name. Where has it been documented that shoulder fired SAM’s have been used in afghanistan? Don’t even go to the CH-47 incident where seven NATO (Five US) solders were killed. That was an RPG hit with two living witnesses. With a starting price of $80,000. for a Chicom SAM-7 MANPOD via Iraq, and a starting price of a Russian Mfg. SAM-16 and 18’s via Syria at $150,000.00, if your HAMAS you can get a better deal, and a fresh US Stinger via the Ukraine arms dealers starting at $250,000.00 these weapons are not for the low budget Taliban. Also don’t go off about old US Stingers that were sent to the Taliban in the late 1970’s and early 1980’s. A Stingers batteries life is two-three years, battery goes dead, weapon is dead, makes conversational lamp for the Taliban cave, but thats about all a twenty year old Stinger is good for. Rick W. said all that needs to be said about the A-10. The AC-27J “Stinger” seems to be the Air Forces and Special Operations future fire support platform of choice. When the air crafts basing is announced I would think thats a rather good sign that the AF is serious. ALLONS, Byron Skinner
	Insider August 1st, 2010 at 10:42 pm Rick W & Bywrong, Gen Spike Momeyer and a group of AF fighter pilots put together the SON for the A10 after our VN experience. Gen Momeyer was the TAC commander and follow on TAC/ACC four stars have supported the A10 with the caveat that survivability was a big problem in for the A10 against high threats..ZSU23-4/57mm AAA, MANPADS, SA 8s/6s technology (never mind the SA11/15/10 era weapons) employed by a competent operators ( as opposed to Iraqis). The AF is given a finite amount of $$ to accommodate many combat missions. SUPPORTING ARMY RQMTS IS NOT THE PRIMARY MISSION OF THE AF!! The judgement of many 4 stars with thousands of hours of combat time was to keep a few A10s and invest in more survivable weapons. How many combat hours do you have?? Given all the $$ in world the AF could buy a platform for everyone’s wet dream…The problem in Iraq & Afghanistan is not lack of AFsupport to the Army…it’s the strategy. Bywrong…is that the best you can do? LOL..that’s weak. That said, I’m your huckleberry…we can always arrange a get together?
	Alberto August 2nd, 2010 at 3:07 am Byron, Wikileaks shows that several world leaders flying into Kabul airport had to take evasive maneuvers because of MANPADS… “Low budget” terrorists have also used MANPADS against Isalei charter aircraft leaving a African Resort (in Kenya IIRC)…
	William C. August 2nd, 2010 at 12:43 pm You try flying low and slow in a F-15E or F-16C/D. Don’t bash those pilots for not putting their aircraft in vulnerable positions. And the A-10 pilots, they can go slow and low.
	BOOMER August 2nd, 2010 at 3:48 pm No more funding for new C130’s is why they switched to converting C27’s which they want to get rid of completely, to finnish manning up the units — which is OK but dont expect to see them buying a bunch of new ones to convert to AC’s. A10’s are awesome but way underfunded and as pointed out not going to be foward deployed. Drones cannot provide foward support, they cannot carry the payload and are not dependable enough. Dont believe all the hype put out about them, especialy from the CIA looking for more money to funnel. If the Air Force does not want to play (although I bet a lot of pilots would love the chance) then let the army pilot them thierselves as the Marines do. Gun pods — drop bombs — and 2.5 & 3″ rockets can be attached to any aircraft. In Africa mercs used a $25,000.00 kit plane with a V6 engine, rear prop and two 7.62mm LMG’s, no radar or nothing and did a pretty good job.
	Byron Skinner August 2nd, 2010 at 2:01 pm Good Morning Folks, To Alberto. All military aircraft in war zones take evasive actions on all approaches, landings and take off. The Kenya attack was not low budget operation and if I recall none of the shoulder fired missiles hit the target and the reason was that the operators were not trained. US Stinger operators pend a lot of time in simulators training. In iraq I’m only aware of two successful MANPOD attacks one on a Marine CH-46 and one on a UH-60 Black Hawk/ The Black Hawk attack appears to nave been well planned in that it took out a US Colonel and two US Lt. Cols. The other rocket attacks on US aircraft, and several successful, have been RPG’s, often with a proximally fused HE round that is being made in Switzerland by Brugger and Thomet AG which is sold to a third party buyers which sells them to Iran, which sells to them to al Qaeda and Sunni’s fighting in Iraq and the Taiban in Afghanistan and Pakistan. The above information comes for labels on captured RPG rounds found in weapons cashes in Iraq by the 87th. Infantry of the 10th. Mountain Division Hi Boomer. The number of AC-130’s was always small, about a half dozen or so “officially”. The AF as I’m sure you know has wanted to dump the C-130 over 20 years ago but powerful Congressmen and Senators from Georgia kept putting a dozen or so eveny year in the DoD budget, pork chops and grits as one frustrated Senator once said. The AF are currently looking at with loving eyes the EADS A-400M and the Brazilian Embraer KC-390 for an in theatre transport aircraft. LM does have a contract for some AC-130J’s. As usual the exact number is “classified”. The weapons changes as I recall was keeping the 105mm gun, their was some talk about replacing it with the 120mm “Abrams” gun but the recoil issue proved to costly to resolve for the marginal benefits, replacing the 40mm Bofors with a 35mm Bushmaster III and having only a single GAU-12 was decided for the C-130J the last I read. The number of AC-27J “Stingers” is yet to be determined and are still being “Bata Tested” if you like in Afghanistan, but it does appear the AC-27J’s will be available for on call to units outside the Special Operation Community. ALLONS, Byron Skinner
	Rick W August 2nd, 2010 at 11:19 pm And now we watch history being rewritten. The threats you list are exactly the type of weapons the Iraqis had large numbers of. At the time of Desert Storm the Iraqi military was considered to be extremely capable. The best most modern equipped force in the region with over a decade of combat experience against Iran and a couple brushes against Israel. How does the A-10’s combat record fit with your ‘not survivable’ statement? As far as the primary mission of the airforce, it is exactly the same as the army’s — to win this nation’s wars. At this particular time that should mean doing everything they can to support the army and the marines in the ground fight.
	Rick W August 2nd, 2010 at 11:23 pm I’d expect the C27 to go the way of the Caribou just as soon as the AF can arrange it.
	Insider August 3rd, 2010 at 1:13 am Guess you don’t know who Spike Momeyer was? You sound like a tumbleweed ground pounder…and your “facts” prove it. DESERT STORM…I was there. Flying in DS.… There were few organized/competently operated AAA/SAMS with Iraqi Army units after the first few nights. There were SA-2/3/6/8s mostly around towns/garrisons, there was lots of AAA mostly around airfields, towns, etc…the Iraqi were not competent compared to Russians or VietNamese. Your assertions about DS are silly…the A10 did a good job where employed but without the support of the fast movers, the Weasels, the EC fighters etc they are vulnerable.…As to the stupid low altitude release carnard.…got any notion of what safe arming/escape altitude…never mind, wouldn’t want to cloud your cartoon version of life with facts.
	Charlie Wagner August 3rd, 2010 at 4:17 am It is time to call a spade a spade . The USAF does not want to support anyone but themselves. From their fancy neck kerchiefs to air conditioned quarters, modular heads, and crew hours to fall back on they are simply out of touch, unreliable and non players in CAS and Coin Operations. Every grunt with with a brain on the ground recognizes this FACT. The A10 and their pilots are a wonderful platform but not supported. Very sad but true. Ask for a low pass ( per COIN Procedure) by any FAC and you get a 2000 foot flyby that brings laughter to trops on the ground. ( SAR Helos and C130 are superb people who work their tail off but are a different breed.) Disgraceful but boy does it get them medals and PR that only others dream about. Makes earning a medal cheap to them. Learn to earn it. Exit west USAF and leave the game to the pros — Army and Marine Aviators who have the guts to get down and dirty, fly 10 hour missions day in and day out to the job done. F35 doing CAS is laughable as is the whole program. F16 and F15s not far behind. EC12F is an Army mission — always has been but now is in the throws to becoming USAF controlled. Let em go to supper with the kids after a drone flight while they demand control of the program– another laughable situation. I guess they have to find something to do. So Gen Mattis — a charge from the troops GO FOR IT and show the USAF you mean business — get em built — get em flyin in the Army and Marine Corps and send the USAF and their O7s,and O6,s. packing after their next 90 day tour is over.
	bill August 5th, 2010 at 4:02 am Its true the AF wanted to take over the A10 and cancel. It was an army design, for a particular purpose and it does it very well indeed. The only thing that saved it was the war that happend to pop up just in the nick of time for the A10. The acceptance of it based on its proven performance, was not expected by the AF as it didnt fit their mission as envisioned and they overlooked its value to ground troops. They often overlook the needs of ground troops and would have killed it if they had a little more time. I say, return the whole AF to being another wing of the army and not have them separate. Im sure Ill catch hell for that statement!!
	William C. August 5th, 2010 at 4:48 am That incident where US Colonels were killed wasn’t a MANPADS attack on a chopper, it was a suicide bomber. I have heard of no USAF interest in the A-400M and such a prospect seems very unlikely when you consider we have the C-130J and C-17A . Regarding the potential AC-130J, I sincerely hope we see such an aircraft enter service. The Abrams’ M256 120mm cannon is optimized for killing vehicles. Even with a proper HE shell, it would likely be less powerful (less HE content) than the ammo used by our 105mm howitzers. For awhile it was planned to replace the 25mm GAU-12/U and 40mm Bofors with two Mk.44 30mm Bushmaster II cannons using air-burst ammunition, but this upgrade was canceled. Personally I hope we keep the 25mm GAU-12/U, but a 30mm Bushmaster II or 35mm Bushmaster III with modern air-burst ammunition would be quite an improvement over the old Bofors.
	don husek August 5th, 2010 at 7:48 am This is a silly ass turf war just like Viet Nam. The Air Farce was pissed off that the Army had armed the OV-! Mohawk and had the De Haviland Caribou as transport. The Navy had to have armed helicopters for whatever. The USMC couldn’t run an air assault to save it’s ass and the grunt suffered. I am a bit of a biggot but I was in the Cav’s Cav , 1 ACD, 1/9 Cav, with the world minus in support. Afganistan is not Viet Nam. It is a counter insurgency. There are no air superority concerns and the panzers arn not going to cross the Polish frontier so the tank buster A-10 is a bit of over kill. What is needed is the ability to put fire on a specific target with a pilot that can make an on the spot decision to shoot or not. It is really neato to control a drone from half a world away, but the on site evalualion is missing. We are not bunker busting or killing tanks. The COIN support aicraft can opperate with the forward positions and you can have 20 or 30 as opposed to an USAF jet an hour or more away. Beau coup hot shots would welcome the chance to fly one as in the past. When the air farce procures aircraft, It is not in consideration of mission or men.
	Henry Johnson August 5th, 2010 at 12:27 pm RE: TWM Technology LLC has developed a Plastic, Electromagnetic, AC/DC Generator/Motor. We would like you to consider using our Generator/Motor in the COIN Airplane for extended loiter time. Our development is so radical most Intellectual types do not believe what they are seeing. Our proof of concept model has been running fine for the last three years. The process magnifies the Magnetic energy of a Permanent Magnet thousands of times as we change polarity from 100,000 to 300,000 times per minute. This is “New Science”, we understand; this conflicts with the 1st law of Physics; However, what we accomplish by multiplying the stored “Permanent Magnet energy”, which never depletes, is much different than normal energy consumption devices. In fact, the permanent magnet tends to increase in power the more it is compressed. That is how Permanent Magnets are made. This development will have a huge impact on the Airplane and Truck industry, as our Beta model (600 HP, 15” In diameter by 30” long) can power a Prop-airplane or Semi Truck for several Months using no hydrocarbons, it generates no Heat and runs on simple Lead Acid or any rechargeable Batteries. The G/M can be connected to the existing Prop or transmission, replacing the Internal Combustion Engine and operate from 0 to 4,000 RPM’s. This eliminates the fuel tank, fuel injection systems, radiator, emission controls and exhaust systems. This development has many variables that need to be explored and refined; including powering a microwave cannon.
	Matt August 5th, 2010 at 12:36 pm I would support any approach that provided additional effective CAS. The operative word is “effective.” To be effective, the weapon system must deliver the necessary firepower and survive the battle. I am not sure a “slow-flyer” would survive once the bad-guys figure out that the aircraft shooting at them flies low and slow. Now it is just a fat target for every heavy machine gun and shoulder fired SAM in the battle supplied by Iran.
	William C. August 5th, 2010 at 1:00 pm For some reason my comment about the AC-130 vanished. Everything I said about the now cancelled AC-130 weapons upgrade was open, non-classified information. Anyway, the big difference between these COIN aircraft and the old A-1 Skyraider is survivability. The A-1 was built to take a beating and keep working. Even it’s big radial engine was something that could survive some damage. It’s empty weight is rougly twice that of the proposed AT-6B Texan II and EMB-314 Super Tucano. I simply don’t see how such an aircraft could match the level of survivability the Skyraider or even certain WWII aircraft (P-47, Tempest) had.
	mike j August 5th, 2010 at 1:16 pm What data are you basing your assumptions on? Have they even done any live-fire testing on these airframes? Stick to what you know. …And yeah, it couldn’t possibly have been buggy software that swallowed your post… they must be censoring you…
	B. Davy Davidson August 5th, 2010 at 1:44 pm The Navy it seems has decided it wants to move from a primary sea and attack mission mode to an all inclusive force for the future, which will include tactical air power duties. Last week they were seeking their own separate high attitude Drone program like the Air Force Force Global Hawk , and now they want to get more involved with the Army ground War mission. From what I read, the Navy has their hands full with the Submarine, Carrier groups, and other sea going warfare equipment. I believe the duties of each branch of the service must be defined and that over lapping missions and duplication is costly and could create dangerous confusion . This DOD struggle for Power and budget grants between the respective Armed Forces has got to be contained. America can’t afford duplication or combat confusion. Allow the Air Force to do its mission in the skys. (Either that or allow the Air Force a few Air Force Carriers, and Nuke subs. to enhance their rapid response time to emergencies around the world.)
	BOOMER August 5th, 2010 at 3:24 pm In reality they did away with the perfect craft for this mission in 98. The old workhorse A6 intruder, which did a lot of CAS during desrt storm along with the A10 and broncos. A6’s had a very long loiter time and carried massive ammounts of ordnance. While not a prop like these it proved it could fly at tree top level and deploy its payload in many instances from NAM to Desert Storm. It was pointed out then that CAS will continue to be an issue for any battle and as such aircraft like the A6 should remain in inventory but the Navy brass didnt want to hear it just as the Air Force doesnt want to hear how good the A10 really is. Now they are back to square one figuring out what will cheaply replace what should have been kept.
	mable2 August 5th, 2010 at 11:14 pm I like that idea. when do we start.
	mable2 August 5th, 2010 at 11:37 pm What happen to the little F104 the they were tring in VN. with the minnie gun.
	TJRedneck August 6th, 2010 at 6:32 am I agree with whoever said we need upgraded A-10s. That is the ultimate ground support aircraft, the reason that the Generals/politicians want to get rid of it, is because it WORKS! There is NO way in hell that the F-35 can replace the A-10, NO WAY! I don’t even think it will be half as good as most of the aircraft it is supposed to replace. Anyway, they need to take the A-10, put better/faster/more fuel efficient engines on it, give it the latest electronic upgrades, and build it with even stronger materials, and you would have one awesome ground support aircraft. They can park close to the action and deliver hell on the enemy. Good, I’m glad that argument is settled.
	Jay Citizen August 7th, 2010 at 2:49 pm Geeze! You hit that on the nail head!
	Jay Citizen August 7th, 2010 at 3:14 pm Totally agree Charlie; I’ve always wondered what happened to the PA-48. This was supposedly the prop plane that held the record in ordinance tonnage, but Piper didn’t have the political backing to fund it any further. You can’t tell me the P-51, which this plane was designed after, couldn’t take ground fire, or was not a maneuverable design! And with today’s modern composite armor, it could be a minor kit up job to get it up to snuff. I like that idea better than this new turbo prop; but it would need a new turbo power unit, to get it up to fuel usage requirements — I’m sure.
	Jay Citizen August 7th, 2010 at 3:45 pm I’m going to want to see this do actual work, before I will be convinced of this perpetual motion concept. Their have been eons of failure for such claims.
	Henry Johnson August 9th, 2010 at 9:33 am Hi Jay Citizen: One other thing I neglected to say ; The centrifugal force, of the 3– flywheels, assists, causing huge torque. Our 3″ proto-type powered a 350# moped for 1 hour, Conducted by a 3rd party. The batteries were fully charged @ the end of the hour. Shortly we will have a 1 ton truck on the road, for a demo. It will travel thousands of miles with out hydrocarbons. We have encountered a technical problem, of too much electric energy produced, damaging our control system. We appear to have that solved now.
	William C. August 9th, 2010 at 11:37 am I don’t know about the EMB-314 and AT-6B, but yeah the A-1, P-47, and Tempest had their share of “live-fire testing” in actual combat where they proved they could take a beating. As for my prior comment, I don’t know why it vanished but if it was deleted due to OPSEC reasons I just wanted to state that I don’t believe I did anything wrong there.
	Reed August 9th, 2010 at 12:50 pm Jay Citizen referred to the Piper PA48 Enforcer. I hadn’t heard of it before but it looks like a perfect COIN aircraft. Fast and more payload than AT-6B/Super Tucano. Probably too spendy and it would take too long to get in production. I think the best solution is an Army COIN. The ugly, slow, but cheaper Air Tractor. On the realistic, political side, if this is going to happen it will be an Air Force AT-6B.
	mike j August 9th, 2010 at 1:06 pm Your words: - “…the big difference between these COIN aircraft and the old A-1 Skyraider is survivability.” - “I don’t know about the EMB-314 and AT-6B…” So there’s a difference between these aircraft that you don’t know about… …ok. We’re not exactly re-fighting the Wehrmacht in Afghanistan, y’know. But yes, it’s good when airplanes can take some hits. I expect the manufacturers have considered that.
	William C. August 9th, 2010 at 1:51 pm I don’t know about their exact details Mike, but it is clear from weight alone that there isn’t that much room for armor plating. Maybe some kevlar and self-sealing fuel tanks, but I have my doubts if that is enough. These things will be flying low and slow, and when they get close I imagine the Taliban will unload their AKs, RPKs, PKMs, and whatever else they have at the aircraft. If your fighting against a large Taliban force, that is a lot of lead flying you way and you could easily take some hits. Ideally this COIN aircraft would be well protected from hits by rifle caliber ammuntion, and able to survive a hit from HMG calibers in key areas. (The enemy does occasionally use DSHKs and 14.5mm ZPUs)
	William C. August 9th, 2010 at 1:55 pm If the EMB-314 or AT-6B can meet that level of survivability, than we should go ahead a buy them, but I simply have some doubts at the moment when I compare these aircraft to something like the big A-1 or P-47.
	mike j August 9th, 2010 at 3:26 pm Lots of people harp on that “low and slow” thing, but I doubt that’s how they’ll be used. All the competing designs have EO scanners, and are required to be able to launch all smaller kinds of missiles and other PGMs up to 500lb LGBs and JDAMs. That’s not the armament of an in-your-face mudfighter. It’s more like the fixed wing equivalent of a helo gunship, with about the same load but twice the speed and endurance (at least), and half the cost to buy and maintain. Saying they’re aren’t as tough because they don’t weigh as much, sorry, just isn’t valid.
	Jay Citizen August 9th, 2010 at 5:05 pm I vote PA-48 designed by Piper, this was designed straight off the P-51 which did survive 14mm akk-akk by the Germans, and I believe, once held the air record for most ordinance carried aloft in a single engine prop plan. We called it the Enforcer; but the name probably didn’t stick. With today’s modern composite bath tub armor, I think it could be a contender!
	Jay Citizen August 9th, 2010 at 5:06 pm Forgot the link — sorry! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piper_PA-48_Enforcer
	Jay Citizen August 9th, 2010 at 5:12 pm Your probably right there Reed. I’m sure Hawker Beechcraft has more political pull than Piper.
	William C. August 9th, 2010 at 6:03 pm Your probably right about the manner this will be used, when I hear COIN plane I automatically picture strafing runs and low level bombing with dumb ordinance. But my point about weight remains, it is easy to find pictures of damaged P-47s and possibly A-1s that managed to return to base, on one occasion a P-47 returned to base with a large chunk of it’s wing sheered off by AA fire. As engines grew in power during the war, some aircraft took advantage of that power to carry extra armor.
	William C. August 9th, 2010 at 6:05 pm I definitely think the PA-48 should be strongly considered in any competition for such an aircraft. It could certainly be updated to modern avionics standards.
	chris August 13th, 2010 at 4:50 pm Amazing how we (America) loves to reinvent the wheel, if its not broke don’t fix it. The A10 is an excellent platform for todays conflict and tomorrow future wars! What kills me is the Navy/AF will upgrade “fastmovers” on a dime to fit requirements and the ever changing battlefield, example F/A-18, F-16, and F-15. Yet, from my view the A10 has remained the same minus the “high-tech” upgrades, why? Let’s use some common sense for once. The Hog is an effective platform for combating Unconventional Warfare and can make the quick transition to fighting traditional conflict.
	Jay Citizen August 13th, 2010 at 5:23 pm The only problem is aging, loiter time, and fuel usage; so yeah — it’s broke, but we could get away with not fixing it for a while, but at what mission expense? We may not have the logistics to supply enough fuel and parts to keep an obsolete junker flying in the near future! Using a turbo prop would pay for itself in fuel usage alone, in not too many mission hours!! You would get the same airspeed, and weapons load capacity, so no sacrifice there. We need to think smarter not harder, if we are going to bring the boys home alive.
	William C. August 13th, 2010 at 5:29 pm The A-10 has always had good loiter time, I don’t know why people say it doesn’t have enough. And the turbofans should be using less fuel than a F-15E or fast-mover. And unless it is a big turbo-prop, I don’t think your getting the weapons load or 30mm GAU-8/A. I like the prospect or a true attack aircraft. But for all this effort we might as well build a true successor to the A-10.
	Jay Citizen August 13th, 2010 at 5:47 pm Yeah the A-10 has a wonderful loiter time, but we are talking big fuel tanks on that bird too?! The Enforcer had the worlds record for weight of ordinance held back when Piper developed it. I’m sure it would carry more that that turkey vulture pictured in the article. Plus it was armored up for fighting in Vietnam. The P-51 airframe may be obsolete, but it survived a lot of flak and fighter interference, and it was a tested design. I only offer it as an example of an historic attempt to come up with the best in CAS. Maybe we should revisit that history for the reasons I’ve already stated. Your right, that it needs an on board cannon, but they have chain guns that compare to the GAU-8 now-a-days. Also, I’m reading that the new telescopic ammo is doing so well, they even have an M-4 adapted to it! This could save a butt load on weight for the new platform.