Close Air Support

[MD]

23 hours ago, Lawman said:

 

1. In effects driven CAS where 90% of your problems are solved by a Hellfire or at best a 500lbs. We don't need 16k lbs of ordnance or a variety of dumb and non unitary ordnance to stop some tank company from pushing on our Stykers. You need a 114 to kill the IED team or that technical hiding amongst an urban environment.

 

Not only that, but no A-10s have gone to war with anything near 16,000 lbs of ordnance. Average loads were half that or so of stores. Sure, the capability is there, but it's not a realistic number in combat.

Edited August 8, 2016 by MD

[MD]

On ‎8‎/‎6‎/‎2016 at 6:34 PM, Clark Griswold said:

 

 Yup - it is a cool little known history of the USAF. 

Interesting historical video on the A-37 and the BPC mission we were facing then with "Vietnamzation" - small jets just can't catch a break...

 

When TASS squadrons were still around, and during the Desert Shield timeframe, we still had two OV-10A squadrons, at George and Shaw; two OA-37 squadrons, at Howard and at Peoria ANG; and 3 OA-10 squadrons, at Osan and DM. The AF didn't want to send the OV-10s or the OA-37s to DS, preferring the OA-10s. Even a couple of those were lost from the 23rd. The USMC sent their OV-10s and lost two of them in fairly short order, to where they stayed around or mostly behind the FLOT after that.

[Sprkt69]

37 minutes ago, MD said:

 

When TASS squadrons were still around, and during the Desert Shield timeframe, we still had two OV-10A squadrons, at George and Shaw; two OA-37 squadrons, at Howard and at Peoria ANG; and 3 OA-10 squadrons, at Osan and DM. The AF didn't want to send the OV-10s or the OA-37s to DS, preferring the OA-10s. Even a couple of those were lost from the 23rd. The USMC sent their OV-10s and lost two of them in fairly short order, to where they stayed around or mostly behind the FLOT after that.

Those were also the days without good targeting pods. If we use that example, it should be raining Preds and Reapers as they get shot from the sky

[MD]

20 minutes ago, Sprkt69 said:

Those were also the days without good targeting pods. If we use that example, it should be raining Preds and Reapers as they get shot from the sky

 

Sure, tech has definitely gotten better. I was relating why the AF was reluctant to send those two airframes at that time, rightly or wrongly.

[Lawman]

 

When TASS squadrons were still around, and during the Desert Shield timeframe, we still had two OV-10A squadrons, at George and Shaw; two OA-37 squadrons, at Howard and at Peoria ANG; and 3 OA-10 squadrons, at Osan and DM. The AF didn't want to send the OV-10s or the OA-37s to DS, preferring the OA-10s. Even a couple of those were lost from the 23rd. The USMC sent their OV-10s and lost two of them in fairly short order, to where they stayed around or mostly behind the FLOT after that.

Sending a

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Clark Griswold]

7 hours ago, MD said:

Sure, tech has definitely gotten better. I was relating why the AF was reluctant to send those two airframes at that time, rightly or wrongly.

No doubt that a LAAR would be restricted to the Irregular Warfare scenario and maybe if it is a higher end LAAR platform (like Scorpion) it could have some role in larger conflicts but the cost savings is half of the operational requirement I am arguing for.  It is so much cheaper to operate these systems and deliver the same effects that it is worth investing the time, money and effort to build out a portion of the USAF dedicated to this type of warfare.

On the subject of TASS OA-37s, found this video from circa early 80s I guess set to "Eye of the Tiger" - Killer Tweets raging, conducting AR, pretty much awesome...

 

[Blue]

On 8/6/2016 at 11:43 PM, Lawman said:

2. Survivability right now is an issue. Take a look at the beating the Iraqis and Syrians have taken lately. Low slow and light weight are not places we are putting anything we own right now. The Iraqis want to fly their 208s around in that crap they can have at it. We aren't even allowing rotary into risky positions because of the political fall out loosing a bird or having another Black Hawk Down.

The survivability question is valid, but at the same time, has the Air Force done anything recently to give the A-10 better countermeasures?  The other services have put a lot of effort into faster/better/cheaper ECM systems for low and slow aircraft (programs like JATAS and CIRCM).  The A-10 (and the Air Force) always seem to be absent from these discussions.

[Lawman]

The survivability question is valid, but at the same time, has the Air Force done anything recently to give the A-10 better countermeasures?  The other services have put a lot of effort into faster/better/cheaper ECM systems for low and slow aircraft (programs like JATAS and CIRCM).  The A-10 (and the Air Force) always seem to be absent from these discussions.

DIRCM/ATIRCM/CMWS/etc work great and last a long time but there are glaring limitations in those systems. Along with that its not so much the guided stuff Im worried about in a light single engine A-29 type aircraft profile. Isis has been doing stuff with light and med caliber AAA the likes of which we haven't seen in 15 years over Afghanistan. The Hawg has armor and redundancy of two engines but that's really only gonna bring a shot up airplane home to possibly write off. The people arguing for a nostalgic trip back to a A-1 Sandy type airplane are signing up to lose friends when those light low cost systems come up against 57mm AAA.

The basic of it is yes we need something cheaper than Raptors to pull the cart. If the survivability issue is such that aircraft are performing med altitude delivery of small CDE limiting ordnance though that doesn't need to be a Hawg or one of these light attack airplanes. If pumping the money into drones like reaper and Pred and beefing up their ability to train pilots would net us more savings than keeping around the A-10 to do what Viper or Bone is currently doing (sitting at Altitude with a Pod). And just keep a couple of those expensive fast movers around for when something kicks off where you don't have stuff. If you could get enough UAS armed, or start strapping Hellfires and Griffens to C-12s/U-28s those gaps where dudes are exposed would lessen severely and we wouldn't need so many lines on the ATO of expensive high cost CAS missions from Vipers or Strikes.

Yes drones aren't as useful in a full intensity conflict due to EW etc, but let's be honest neither is Hawg or a light attack jet when they either get beat up or require massive support and coordination to put them over the FLOT. Right now it's either those high cost high altitude guys or the Gray Eagle/Reaper/Pred guys that are doing all the flying where the bad guys are because we won't risk manned aircraft in the current political environment. So having A-29 or an upgraded Hawg etc doesn't really net you any savings.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Blue]

14 minutes ago, Lawman said:

DIRCM/ATIRCM/CMWS/etc work great and last a long time but there are glaring limitations in those systems.

I'm sure there are glaring limitations in those systems.  Part of that is they're old -- CMWS/ATIRCM was fielded in the late 90's.

There has been significant amount of work in the ECM realm since things like ATIRCM and CMWS were originally fielded.  However, you never see anything about the A-10 taking advantage of any of these advances.

19 minutes ago, Lawman said:

Along with that its not so much the guided stuff Im worried about in a light single engine A-29 type aircraft profile. Isis has been doing stuff with light and med caliber AAA the likes of which we haven't seen in 15 years over Afghanistan. The Hawg has armor and redundancy of two engines but that's really only gonna bring a shot up airplane home to possibly write off. The people arguing for a nostalgic trip back to a A-1 Sandy type airplane are signing up to lose friends when those light low cost systems come up against 57mm AAA.

Same thing here.  DoD has poured a metric ton of cash and effort into developing Hostile Fire Indication (HFI), which is designed to give some level of protection against AAA and other unguided munitions.  Google it, and you'll get hits from all of the big military contractors.  Lots of talk of applications for USMC and Army helos and slow movers, no talk of applications for the A-10.

[Lawman]

Same thing here.  DoD has poured a metric ton of cash and effort into developing Hostile Fire Indication (HFI), which is designed to give some level of protection against AAA and other unguided munitions.  Google it, and you'll get hits from all of the big military contractors.  Lots of talk of applications for USMC and Army helos and slow movers, no talk of applications for the A-10.

I'm aware of all that you just mentioned. And I've employed most of it.

I'm saying even with these new systems (we've got all of them), the modification of TTPs to present the absolute lowest risk of dropping an aircrew into a crap zone makes planes like the Hawg, the A-29, or even the 64 in my case a poor investment. We aren't going to put these aircraft in an envelope to use them the way design intended, we are treating them as a non persistent ISR asset with a secondary on call Air delivered Fires platform. The only reason we are even doing this is because there aren't enough persistent ISR platforms with a strike capability available. At that point anybody could do it, so why buy more into a "CAS" specific platform that can't do peer fights anyway.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Sprkt69]

10 hours ago, Lawman said:

 

 

I'm aware of all that you just mentioned. And I've employed most of it.

 

I'm saying even with these new systems (we've got all of them), the modification of TTPs to present the absolute lowest risk of dropping an aircrew into a crap zone makes planes like the Hawg, the A-29, or even the 64 in my case a poor investment. We aren't going to put these aircraft in an envelope to use them the way design intended, we are treating them as a non persistent ISR asset with a secondary on call Air delivered Fires platform. The only reason we are even doing this is because there aren't enough persistent ISR platforms with a strike capability available. At that point anybody could do it, so why buy more into a "CAS" specific platform that can't do peer fights anyway.

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Because we need a semi persistent platform that can employ fires which also costs significantly less to operate in order to save the rest of the crumbling fleet

[Lawman]

19 hours ago, Sprkt69 said:

Because we need a semi persistent platform that can employ fires which also costs significantly less to operate in order to save the rest of the crumbling fleet

Which we can get without going down an umpteen million dollar rabbit hole.

If we are gonna ask these platforms to perform "today's mission" then let's be realistic about what today's mission is. You don't need a Hawg or an Apache for that matter. You need efficiency in time on station with a small strike capability. At this point we'd be better off teaching a small simple aircraft designed to be an economic point to point cruiser with lots of gas, payload for several sensors, multiple crew to run same, and a light but effective weapons load. We would get more bang for the buck investing in non sexy systems like some kind of armed MC-12 or other air transport based airframe, not the nostalgic sexiness of a Turboprop fighter plane that reminds people of a P-51.

People are on hear defending the LAA concept on the idea that using an F-16 to shot and IED emplacer is overkill, I'm saying its the same overkill for "today's mission" with the A-29. It's funny because we spend hundreds of millions of dollars trying to fight this exact argument with our foreign partners who want a hot rod when what they need is something unsexy that works.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Edited August 10, 2016 by Lawman
Redact

[Sprkt69]

17 hours ago, Lawman said:

Which we can get without going down an umpteen million dollar rabbit hole.

If we are gonna ask these platforms to perform "today's mission" then let's be realistic about what today's mission is. You don't need a Hawg or an Apache for that matter (except on infil/exfil in the case of RA CAS). You need efficiency in time on station with a small strike capability. At this point we'd be better off teaching a small simple aircraft designed to be an economic point to point cruiser with lots of gas, payload for several sensors, multiple crew to run same, and a light but effective weapons load. We would get more bang for the buck investing in non sexy systems like some kind of armed MC-12 or other air transport based airframe, not the nostalgic sexiness of a Turboprop fighter plane that reminds people of a P-51.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

It's the flexibility, survivability and lower cost than a MC-12 or Apache that makes the A-29 a good platform for COIN. Not to say there isn't a time and place for an MC-12 or F-16.

BTW, good luck cramming more stuff onto an MC-12 and expect it to maneuver more than it already can.

Edited August 10, 2016 by Sprkt69

[Lawman]

 

It's the flexibility, survivability and lower cost than a MC-12 or Apache that makes the A-29 a good platform for COIN. Not to say there isn't a time and place for an MC-12 or F-16.

BTW, good luck cramming more stuff onto an MC-12 and expect it to maneuver more than it already can.

But we've proven you can do coin with less than an A-29 every day by doing it with a Caravan of all things.

Look if the point is finding a way to both save money and keep hours off our high cost fleet buying something that's 3/4 the price of what they are flying in place of that only removes that fighter from the stack doesn't net you real savings. What's more since we are talking about an aircraft without air refuel capability I now need a lot more lines on the ATO to give the persistence over target and the ability to be retasked for follow on or mission change so the savings is probably a break even at best. If you've gotta put 3-4x A-29s in the air what did you really save off not launching a Viper etc.

The most efficient way to make what is effectively an airliner is to look at airliners. Flying around in circles at 14k for hours on end to not drop steel and watch guys walk into a village is something we are already doing with ISR platforms. If that's the case let's look at a future generation armed ISR or mod and buy planes we have that can do it (MC-12 being an example of type not the go to) and not try to teach a light attack plane how to be an ISR platform like that isn't 99% of the job in the stack because that's the reality of COIN.

That will net you savings. Because now you simply don't need the lines for FW CAS since the ISR can already do it.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[schokie]

11 hours ago, Lawman said:

 We would get more bang for the buck investing in non sexy systems like some kind of armed MC-12 or other air transport based airframe, not the nostalgic sexiness of a Turboprop fighter plane that reminds people of a P-51...

Turns out you can barrel roll an MC-12. 

Edited August 10, 2016 by schokie

[tac airlifter]

Lawman, what is the first rule of fight club?  

[Lawman]

Lawman, what is the first rule of fight club?

Ah crap yeah that's to close to home and too late to edit...

Mods?

[Hacker]

2 hours ago, schokie said:

Turns out you can barrel roll an MC-12. 

Just for the record, they were aileron rolls.

[Clark Griswold]

2 hours ago, Lawman said:

Ah crap yeah that's to close to home and too late to edit...

Mods?

Too general for Rule 1 violation but just to quibble even 3-4 AT-6Bs or A-29s would not eclipse the cost of the average 2 ship Viper, Mud Hen, Super Bug, etc... when you factor in AR and other support to that asset.  

The MC-12 was fine for its tasked mission not for an aspirational mission that we can theorize about but if the USAF is serious about manned, moderate persistence, ISR with precision, low CDE strike capability without the tactical maneuvering capabilities a LAAR would offer then I suggest modifying a small(er) Maritime Patrol Aircraft like the Special Missions Saab 340.  Similar mission characteristics as Maritime Patrol, so go get something close to what you need and modify as required...

About the right size without being too big, sts...

http://saab.com/air/airborne-solutions/airborne-surveillance/saab-340-msa/

Some technical modification required but I doubt a bill that is actually that high relative to the almost hundreds of millions in the first FY of operation the DoD would realize in O&M savings.

Google'd it and from an Aviation Week . com airliner cost per hour breakout, it comes to about $1100 for the Saab, triple it for a military version and at $3300 per hour it's still a bargain.  

9 hours endurance (with aux tanks), loiter at 140 knots, already flying in a feasibly modifiable configuration for this mission, all it needs now is to not have ACC responsible for the USAF Core Function it performs and it might get funded.  

ACC bubbas don't take that as a cheap shot but having a command that is primarily concerned with higher end warfare responsible for this Core Function and all the unglamorous duties it sometime (a lot of times) entails is why good ideas on how to do it never come to fruition.

This thread is Close Air Support and LAAR / Manned ISR-Strike supports that (kinda) or should this be considered CAS for small maneuver elements / SOF teams?  Semantics and somewhat esoteric but if it could get that formally recognized and incorporated into a doctrine document, it would have a leg to stand on for resourcing rather than fervent internet support.  WIC guys, take up this charge...

[BFM this]

[...], all it needs now is to not have ACC responsible for the USAF Core Function it performs and it might get funded.  

ACC bubbas don't take that as a cheap shot but having a command that is primarily concerned with higher end warfare responsible for this Core Function and all the unglamorous duties it sometime (a lot of times) entails is why good ideas on how to do it never come to fruition.[...]

No arguments here. My beloved MAJCOM is the reason we're going through the third iteration of "fixing" the RPA business model, but I'd put my next paycheck on a table in Vegas that, yes, the RPA community will still look like a Vietnamese Under Armor sweatshop when the issue gets raised again in 6-9 years.

[Lawman]

Too general for Rule 1 violation but just to quibble even 3-4 AT-6Bs or A-29s would not eclipse the cost of the average 2 ship Viper, Mud Hen, Super Bug, etc... when you factor in AR and other support to that asset.  

The MC-12 was fine for its tasked mission not for an aspirational mission that we can theorize about but if the USAF is serious about manned, moderate persistence, ISR with precision, low CDE strike capability without the tactical maneuvering capabilities a LAAR would offer then I suggest modifying a small(er) Maritime Patrol Aircraft like the Special Missions Saab 340.  Similar mission characteristics as Maritime Patrol, so go get something close to what you need and modify as required...

About the right size without being too big, sts...

http://saab.com/air/airborne-solutions/airborne-surveillance/saab-340-msa/

Some technical modification required but I doubt a bill that is actually that high relative to the almost hundreds of millions in the first FY of operation the DoD would realize in O&M savings.

Google'd it and from an Aviation Week . com airliner cost per hour breakout, it comes to about $1100 for the Saab, triple it for a military version and at $3300 per hour it's still a bargain.  

9 hours endurance (with aux tanks), loiter at 140 knots, already flying in a feasibly modifiable configuration for this mission, all it needs now is to not have ACC responsible for the USAF Core Function it performs and it might get funded.  

ACC bubbas don't take that as a cheap shot but having a command that is primarily concerned with higher end warfare responsible for this Core Function and all the unglamorous duties it sometime (a lot of times) entails is why good ideas on how to do it never come to fruition.

This thread is Close Air Support and LAAR / Manned ISR-Strike supports that (kinda) or should this be considered CAS for small maneuver elements / SOF teams?  Semantics and somewhat esoteric but if it could get that formally recognized and incorporated into a doctrine document, it would have a leg to stand on for resourcing rather than fervent internet support.  WIC guys, take up this charge...

This is exactly what I'm getting at.

If we are really after savings I think a mid sized commuter plane like the Dash 8s (which we've already proven we can own and play with) are a great way to get out of the box we've put ourselves in.

1. It lowers the visual presence of our aircraft vice somebody deploying strike eagles or something more military in style like a special mission 130. There are a lot of countries that could more readily allow this position because of nationalist/anti-US sentiment at home.

2. Maintenance can go to a more civilian type because those airframes are being used in a normal 1-2g capacity they aren't playing around at other times.

3. It will strengthen ACC because since we don't need the commitment of crews and airframes to that mission there are parts, people , and money to train at home, or deploy to multinational training like sending Vipers or Hawgs to Sprang or Japan instead of spending 4.8 in an orbit yo-yo'ing off a tanker whose Majcom also doesn't face the commitment requirements.

4. Equipment doesn't face near the difficulty in where to we put box X,Y,Z. You guys should see some of the optics our ground vehicles can deploy because they have the ability to build in a space bigger than a sniper/lightning pod. You've got lots or room for antenna and radios to support all those comms, you've got space for multiple crew members to combat boredom/fatigue drain on mission effectiveness.

Seriously with the ease of employability of a lot of new small size PGMs like Griffen or P/R Hellfire it's not like the strike thing is going to be some impossibility to teach those guys. We already have and maintain that gunnery skill set in the ISR community.

But alas I'm not running the donkey show, I just mop the floors around here.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Sprkt69]

So what do you do when the weather gets less than optimal and you start getting shot at? Hope and dream that the big civilian aircraft can absorb the hits? There is a time and place for everything, just have to decide what risk level you want to be at

[Lawman]

So what do you do when the weather gets less than optimal and you start getting shot at? Hope and dream that the big civilian aircraft can absorb the hits? There is a time and place for everything, just have to decide what risk level you want to be at

You aren't the only means for fires out there. TTPs and mission criteria on the ground can and do evolve.

Nobody is saying you can completely take the fighters or rotary wing CAS out of the Coin fight, but doing something like this takes the pain and suffering out of those communities of participating in that 99% of the time where they legitimately don't need to be there.

If you can get away with 3-4 Hawgs or Viper where we used to need whole squadrons because the stacks are much more self sufficient it'll still be bigger savings than trying to add what is essentially a less effective (TOS/speed/armament/etc) lower cost airplane where you still have 3-4+ aircraft where you could get away with 1-2 almost all of the time.

And I get it the Hawg guys keep leveraging that card of "what about if" with weather eyc, but to get down that low you are well into the RW envelope anyway. And if we can get out of wasting time in stacks that don't need is we can be more places when called.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[SurelySerious]

So what do you do when the weather gets less than optimal and you start getting shot at? Hope and dream that the big civilian aircraft can absorb the hits? There is a time and place for everything, just have to decide what risk level you want to be at

That mechanism is already in place. Those decisions are already made every day, real-time based on the situation.

[Lawman]

That mechanism is already in place. Those decisions are already made every day, real-time based on the situation.

It's funny that singular argument of a scenario is used as a justification for a line of funding COA and usually ignores the exact same logic with the 5th gen argument of "what do you do for CAS in an SA-2X environment."

If we are planning for every contingency and money is no object, hey great let's have all the airplanes. We unfortunately don't/can't live in that world though so 80-90% solutions have to be adopted with leaders who have the understanding and forethought that they leverage their operations to stay inside that 80-90% as best they are able.