backseatdriver Posted July 27, 2009 Share Posted July 27, 2009 The reason AFSOC won't be flying a Super T anytime soon is because of the Talon and Pave Low mafias in AFSOC that don't understand why it's important and necessary. Fixed. Who is this Gunship mafia you speak of? I'd love to meet them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OverTQ Posted July 27, 2009 Share Posted July 27, 2009 If we're looking for something that can loiter over targets for a long period of time and do the CAS mission, then why wouldn't the focus be on advancing attack helicopters and what would really make the Tucano that much better than the Apache? Since I have multiple tours in the box as a Apache pilot and a FW pilot, allow me to answer. One is again cost. A brand new AH64D cost around $38 million. The operating cost is around $5000 with about 10 hours per flight hour. All that to go after a guy with a $500 dollar RPG. Next is speed. 140 kts vs 350 kts. Time to a TIC is vital. Also take into consideration how the battle space is ran today. While the Longbow is one of the best airframes for doing FAC(A) work, it has two flaws. One is it is operated by the Army. Two is altitude. We do work up to about 8000' but that is not really ideal. In Vietnam, we had a system where the Helios worked low while the fast mover worked high all while being directed by a FAC(A) working medium altitudes. We (Army and AF crews) have adapted and worked it out as best as we can, but there are still issue as probably several crews here can attest too. Where we are fighting today, we don't need a battlefield full of Apaches or any other kind of strikers, we need ISR and assets that can provide adequate support until the big guns can arrive. And that can give on scene coordination. And yes, we would love to fly a FW CAS aircraft. Key West prevents that. Just my opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OverTQ Posted July 27, 2009 Share Posted July 27, 2009 Military.com Christian Lowe | July 24, 2009Sometimes low-tech wars require low-tech solutions to win them. Unfortunately for the United States, that hasn't been the strategic underpinning since the end of World War II saw America as the undisputed technological powerhouse in military hardware. The idea was that American technology would make up for Soviet brute strength and sheer numbers. One F-15 could take out five MiG-21s given the Eagle's advanced radar and combat systems. When air superiority became obsolete because of it, high-tech advocates homed in on precision air-to-ground weaponeering as the new strategic game changer. A $1 billion B-2 could drop multiple $20,000 satellite-guided bombs on separate targets through any weather from 40,000 feet to within inches of the bull's eye. And thus "Effects-based Operations" were born. By accurately bombing from high altitude the right strategic and tactical targets, air power could cause an effect that would force the enemy into submission. The Gulf War proved the thesis, the wars in Yugoslavia and Kosovo furthered it, the Iraq war threw it into doubt -- and now the Afghan war has tossed it out the window. From a dimly-lit room in the bowels of the Pentagon, a champion of the bare-knuckled street fighter toiled in vain. In his ramshackle office, perched on a rusty filing cabinet sat a model airplane. It was an A-10 Thunderbolt II ground attack plane with the word "Marines" stenciled on the fuselage. That man -- Chuck Spinney -- had always been an advocate for airpower that made sense, and to him a force that depended on austerity and simple fighting tactics had no use for a complex ground attack plane that relied on vectored thrust. It was the clean and simple and deadly "Warthog" that fit the Corps' bill in his mind. But men like Spinney were regarded as the red-headed stepchildren of DoD planning. The glamorous gizmos of phased array radars, JDAMs and JASSMs wowed the budget gurus, pilots and their congressional budget masters. That's not to say these wonder weapons didn't actually work, but they tended to work best in a much more antiseptic battlefield than we're seeing today. What's the most requested close air support aircraft on the battlefield in Afghanistan (or in Iraq for that matter)? The mighty AC-130 Spectre gunship. Nothing fancy here, just a bunch of big guns mounted to one side of a 1960s-era transport that spits out responsive, accurate, proportional fire from low altitude with good situational awareness for both pilot and ground pounder. Same goes with the A-10 -- you can't have too many of those unglamorous planes on today's battlefield (and let's not forget that back in the late 1990s the Warthog was almost erased from the Air Force's inventory). Just as the counterinsurgency strategists toiled in the background while the Iraq war crumbled in America's old-school tactical grip only to be showered with laurels as military leaders accepted their plans as a last ditch effort to save a losing war, now the advocates for counterinsurgency airpower are clamoring to be heard. And with a small, shadowy effort conducted by an obscure Navy office fighting for its very existence in a climate of American war apathy, the COIN plane is slowly gestating into something that may save our war in Afghanistan like the COIN strategy saved us in Iraq. In a country as vast and austere as Afghanistan -- with road networks comprised largely of dried up riverbeds and high mountain passes choked off by winter snows -- air power has proven key to a rapid response with troops in contact. But as a recent investigation into the deaths via aerial bombing of civilian Afghans in Farah province demonstrates, the Gulf War model of high altitude precision bombing will only help America lose that war. Does a slow-moving, prop-driven, low altitude attack plane make pilots more vulnerable? You bet. During the Vietnam War, the Air Force and Navy lost more than 260 A-1 Skyraiders during close air support missions. But weighed against the risks to civilians and the effects those deaths would have on America's quest for victory in Afghanistan, it's a risk that needs to be taken to win the most crucial front in the war against those who attacked us on 9-11. When air power can see the enemy with its own eyes, stay over the battlefield for five hours, carry a variety of weaponry that allows for a gradual escalation of force in proportion to the threat and is slow and low enough to patiently identify friend from foe, that's when pilots can execute their version of the ground pounder's mission to prevail in counterinsurgency warfare. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
busdriver Posted July 27, 2009 Share Posted July 27, 2009 Why do people insist on thinking the OA-X (whatever ends up getting the go ahead if ever) will be operating at low altitude? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Murph Posted July 28, 2009 Share Posted July 28, 2009 Fixed. Who is this Gunship mafia you speak of? I'd love to meet them. No kidding; Pave dudes are in control now with a sprinkling of Talon guys here and there. Gunships might be at the top in several years but it aint now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ClearedHot Posted July 28, 2009 Share Posted July 28, 2009 The reason AFSOC won't be flying a Super T anytime soon is because of the Talon and Gunship mafias in AFSOC that are afraid some of the fighter jocks from ACC will make the switch and start taking away some of their glory. You are kidding right? 1. When was the last time Hurlburt (you know the only base that has had gunships for the last 30 years), had a gunship Wing Commander or Ops Group Commander...answer - NEVER 2. When was the last time AFSOC had a Gunship Commander...answer - almost never, Holland had one tour in gunpigs and he was agnostic with regard to platforms. 3. Who is in charge of AFSOC right now...answer - a Pavelow guy. 4. Who set MC-130 RECAP as the AFSOC priority...answer - AFSOC/CC. The only senior gunship guy in the food chain moved to another base, (hopefully a holding pattern to bring him back as the CC), but still the senior gunship dude in AFSOC is an O-6. Ever notice how they move all the gunship dudes with potential to other places? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest CharlieDontSurf Posted July 28, 2009 Share Posted July 28, 2009 You are kidding right? 1. When was the last time Hurlburt (you know the only base that has had gunships for the last 30 years), had a gunship Wing Commander or Ops Group Commander...answer - NEVER 2. When was the last time AFSOC had a Gunship Commander...answer - almost never, Holland had one tour in gunpigs and he was agnostic with regard to platforms. 3. Who is in charge of AFSOC right now...answer - a Pavelow guy. 4. Who set MC-130 RECAP as the AFSOC priority...answer - AFSOC/CC. The only senior gunship guy in the food chain moved to another base, (hopefully a holding pattern to bring him back as the CC), but still the senior gunship dude in AFSOC is an O-6. Ever notice how they move all the gunship dudes with potential to other places? 27SOW/CC...gunship guy.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ClearedHot Posted July 28, 2009 Share Posted July 28, 2009 (edited) 27SOW/CC...gunship guy.... Guess you did not read the question...I said Hurlburt. Cannon is brand new and the first CC there was a Pavelow guy. After 30+ years we finally got a guy at Cannon and one dude hardly qualifies as a mafia. Edited July 28, 2009 by ClearedHot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest CharlieDontSurf Posted July 28, 2009 Share Posted July 28, 2009 just an FYI for f**ks sake. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ClearedHot Posted July 28, 2009 Share Posted July 28, 2009 just an FYI for f**ks sake. Perhaps you can FYI all the other dudes for me as well...UFB. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest CharlieDontSurf Posted July 28, 2009 Share Posted July 28, 2009 (edited) After 30+ years we finally got a guy at Cannon and one dude hardly qualifies as a mafia. It's a start. Perhaps you can FYI all the other dudes for me as well...UFB. YGBFSM...typical. Edited July 28, 2009 by CharlieDontSurf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ClearedHot Posted July 28, 2009 Share Posted July 28, 2009 It's a start. YGBFSM...typical. Typical...here is a clue, don't read my posts...very simple and your problem solved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I don't exist Posted July 29, 2009 Share Posted July 29, 2009 (edited) You are kidding right? 1. When was the last time Hurlburt (you know the only base that has had gunships for the last 30 years), had a gunship Wing Commander or Ops Group Commander...answer - NEVER 2. When was the last time AFSOC had a Gunship Commander...answer - almost never, Holland had one tour in gunpigs and he was agnostic with regard to platforms. 3. Who is in charge of AFSOC right now...answer - a Pavelow guy. 4. Who set MC-130 RECAP as the AFSOC priority...answer - AFSOC/CC. The only senior gunship guy in the food chain moved to another base, (hopefully a holding pattern to bring him back as the CC), but still the senior gunship dude in AFSOC is an O-6. Ever notice how they move all the gunship dudes with potential to other places? CH, all true/valid points. Let the record reflect that I should have written, "...the Talon and Pave Low mafias..." This minor point does not change the fact that tribalism and parochialism prevent AFSOC from truly meeting the needs of the SOF community as a whole. Edited for spelling. Edited July 29, 2009 by I don't exist Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drewpey Posted July 30, 2009 Share Posted July 30, 2009 One thing is for sure...they won't be able to call themselves the "Navy SEALs of the sky"...that moniker is already spoken for! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitman Posted July 30, 2009 Share Posted July 30, 2009 One thing is for sure...they won't be able to call themselves the "Navy SEALs of the sky"...that moniker is already spoken for! HAHA, I can't believe the 319th called themselves that......utterly hilarious! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ImpRoV Posted July 30, 2009 Share Posted July 30, 2009 If we're looking for something that can loiter over targets for a long period of time and do the CAS mission, then why wouldn't the focus be on advancing attack helicopters and what would really make the Tucano that much better than the Apache? If what I heard is true, the next Apache "update" will be that of making the bird unmanned. Dont know how much of this is true but I much rather have a Tucano than something thats unmanned. Just throwing my .02 coming from limited knowledge Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nsplayr Posted July 30, 2009 Share Posted July 30, 2009 (edited) ...tribalism and parochialism prevent AFSOC from truly meeting the needs of the SOF community as a whole. And then... One thing is for sure...they won't be able to call themselves the "Navy SEALs of the sky"...that moniker is already spoken for! HAHA, I can't believe the 319th called themselves that......utterly hilarious! It continues...one team one fight eh? Edit: maybe the Super-Ts really should be called the SEALs of the sky so we can have some real-life Spec Ops fighter pilots running around on here Edited July 30, 2009 by nsplayr Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OverTQ Posted July 30, 2009 Share Posted July 30, 2009 If what I heard is true, the next Apache "update" will be that of making the bird unmanned. Dont know how much of this is true but I much rather have a Tucano than something thats unmanned. Just throwing my .02 coming from limited knowledge They have done limited testing on the idea, but no real plans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fud Posted July 30, 2009 Share Posted July 30, 2009 If what I heard is true, the next Apache "update" will be that of making the bird unmanned. Dont know how much of this is true but I much rather have a Tucano than something thats unmanned. Just throwing my .02 coming from limited knowledge I haven't heard of anyone in the field caring if the birds are manned or unmanned. I think the most important thing is getting the desired effect on the ground regardless of the platform. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OverTQ Posted July 30, 2009 Share Posted July 30, 2009 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlackJetDriver Posted July 31, 2009 Share Posted July 31, 2009 http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2009/07/usaf-officially-launches-light.html#comments USAF officially launches light attack fighter comeback By Stephen Trimble on July 31, 2009 1:32 PM | Permalink | Comments (6) | TrackBacks (0) LAA_Capability_Request_for_Informatio ... ScribdApture™ The US Air Force has issued a request for information to identify sources that can supply 100 new fighters to perform light attack and armed reconnaissance roles. Air Combat Command released a request for information on July 27 that calls for first aircraft deliveries to start in Fiscal 2012 and the first operational squadron to activate a year later. The requirements call for a two-seat turboprop capable of flying up to 30,000ft and equipped with zero-altitude/zero-airspeed ejection seats, full motion video camera, data link, infrared suppressor, radar warning receiver and armored cockpit. Weapons must include a gun, two 500-lb bombs, 2.75-inch rockets and rail-launched munitions. The known for competitors for the requirement include the Air Tractor AT-802U, Embraer Super Tucano, Hawker Beechcraft AT-6B Texan II and Pilatus PC-9. Michel Merluzeau, managing partner at G2 Global Solutions, wrote earlier this week new demand for counter-insurgency (COIN) aircraft could revive interest in the Piper PA-48 Enforcer (pictured above). The PA-48 is an updated version of the World War II-era North American P-51 Mustang, which the USAF evaluated in the early 1970s for a possible COIN role. One potential issue is the PA-48 would not meet the USAF's requirement for a two-seat fighter. Apture™ The light attack/armed reconnaissance fleet, if finally approved, would join a growing COIN air force within an air force. The USAF has already purchased 37 Hawker Beechcraft MC-12Ws to serve as manned intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance aircraft, filling a role previously served almost exclusively by unmanned aircraft systems. The USAF also released another RFI earlier this week for as many as 60 light mobility aircraft (LiMA) to airlift up to six passengers or small loads of cargo from austere or unimproved surfaces. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stitch Posted July 31, 2009 Share Posted July 31, 2009 AT-6B That'd be cool. Enforcer would be cool too. Just put a second seat in the PA-48, just like those Mustangs that have been modded for a back seat. Ya gotta build em up from the scratch anyway. That would be bad-ass. As a tail dragger it be able to take crappy fields better than a tri-gear airplane. As far as LiMA goes, have Cessna crank out a bunch of 206 Stationair's sounds like that would work too. Or what about the Quest Kodiak check em out at http://questaircraft.com Just my .02 FWIW ~ Stitch Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlyinGrunt Posted July 31, 2009 Share Posted July 31, 2009 man, flying a modern P-51 against the bad guys . . . that would be so awesome! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skitzo Posted August 1, 2009 Share Posted August 1, 2009 Well in light of this news at least maybe the TAMIed Viper guys will be bitching a little less. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I don't exist Posted August 1, 2009 Share Posted August 1, 2009 Skitzo, you're wrongly assuming anyone from AFSOC will ever fly this thing, much less a former 300hr wingman from a block 50 that's been outta the jet for 4 years. I'm betting that if any active duty dudes are going to fly it, ACC's going to pulling the block 40 FAC(A) qual'd dudes that are losing their jets due to BRAC or fleet retirement. More than likely it will be the BRAC'd A-10 units. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now