AF Light Air Support Aircraft

[xcraftllc]

49 minutes ago, busdriver said:

APKWS isn't low cost.  It just a different production line.  We're dropping PGMs as fast as they can be made.

 

44 minutes ago, brabus said:

It's about the lowest cost PGM we got going for us so far.  Not saying it's not overpriced like everything else, but what's cheaper and still has utility for the mission set nsplayr is talking about?

I'm not sure about the exact numbers either but I had heard from guys in the know a few years back that they were disappointed in unit cost and that's why it never really caught on (wikipedia agrees with that article at around 30K). Cheaper than a Hellfire or Maverick but about the same amount as a small guided bomb. Hard to sell it as a Hellfire/Mavrick/GBU/SDB replacement unless it's dirt cheap cuz those other weapons can also be used to take out a variety of heavier targets effectively. Most of the cost of such systems is the gadgetry and not the explosives or propellant so you literally get more bang for your buck with larger munitions.

Friggin awesome idea though, really disappointing that it isn't cheaper. Lightweight, compact, high PK, low collateral, short danger close range, pretty much the perfect COIN weapon.

*It does make you wonder though what kind of production rate would be required to bring the price down to a level that would make its merits worth it.

Edited April 23, 2017 by xcraftllc
To add the note at the end.

[Lawman]

APKWS isn't low cost.  It just a different production line.  We're dropping PGMs faster than they can be made.

Fixed it for you.

APKWS is a good place to start, but that weapon has some pretty serious issues that need to be resolved before it's ready to get fully utilized as the PGM of choice the way hellfire is.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[magnetfreezer]

As all things on the net, caveat emptor.
Gonking on their concept, what if you were able to eliminate some or all of the guidance unit on the munition and only have a kit for flight/glide control to the target with a data link from the platform giving course corrections to put the munition on the DPI?
Know your aircraft position down to 0.69 MGRS and release the remotely updated "PGM" during its glide using a cheap(er) beacon on the bomb to gauge its actual performance to the computed solution, adjust as required and then voila, freedom delivered at a lower cost by the minimization of expensive sensors on a one way trip.

I think that's called the GBU12. Other concepts replace expensive sensors with expensive datalinks. Even if.the datalink gets cheaper, updates require either the weapon knowing exactly where it is (JDAM) or the launch aircraft somehow tracking both the weapon and the target.

For Nsplayrs comments on the GFC issue, they need to be pushed back into their lane as supported asset - request effects (targets destroyed) and not how that will be achieved. Similar to strikers (generally) not dictating the escort package load out or ID matrix.

[Lawman]

For Nsplayrs comments on the GFC issue, they need to be pushed back into their lane as supported asset - request effects (targets destroyed) and not how that will be achieved. Similar to strikers (generally) not dictating the escort package load out or ID matrix.

That's fine and can be done, but it starts with the Supported elements ALO being actually competent in the weaponeering and tactics that he has to convey will be employed for that GFC.

DA fight yeah get out of the cockpit, but COIN where CDE and all the after effects are major factors that GFC has to have trust and confidence that the air isn't going to make more problems being on a long chain to make their own decisions. He's the one that has to send guys into that village next week after the strike and deal with the aircraft having done X/Y/Z to meet that intent.

It's the same problem we have with them and we wear the same uniform. If we send an LNO that can't confidently and accurately reflect the needs and capes of the supporting element we end up getting dumb requests like "we want you to use 30mm instead of hellfire to lower CDE" from 3km standoff.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Clark Griswold]

38 minutes ago, magnetfreezer said:

I think that's called the GBU12. Other concepts replace expensive sensors with expensive datalinks. Even if.the datalink gets cheaper, updates require either the weapon knowing exactly where it is (JDAM) or the launch aircraft somehow tracking both the weapon and the target.

I should have elaborated further on my idea of a "Saturday Night Special" PGM.  

This would have no sensors on board, just guidance fins, actuators, a radio or IR beacon and command receiver/processor.  

The guiding platform would monitor the bomb, adjust based on the deviation determined from the beacon and guide to target with the bomb being totally blind/dumb inflight.  

The releasing platform would probably have to be straight and level till impact with basically uninterrupted updates, like the VB-6 (Allied) or Fritz-X (Axis) guided bombs in WWII, the historical inspiration for a cheap (relatively) remotely guided glide munition.

This would all have to be automated for the tolerances required for release in a very tight window, inflight updates and likely could only be used to strike static targets to get to desired CEPs but if you really wanted to get the cost as low as possible, I could see this working, how well is another question.  

Edited April 23, 2017 by Clark Griswold

[SurelySerious]

I should have elaborated further on my idea of a "Saturday Night Special" PGM.  
This would have no sensors on board, just guidance fins, actuators, a radio or IR beacon and command receiver/processor.  
The guiding platform would monitor the bomb, adjust based on the deviation determined from the beacon and guide to target with the bomb being totally blind/dumb inflight.  
The releasing platform would probably have to be straight and level till impact with basically uninterrupted updates, like the VB-6 (Allied) or Fritz-X (Axis) guided bombs in WWII, the historical inspiration for a cheap (relatively) remotely guided glide munition.
This would all have to be automated for the tolerances required for release in a very tight window, inflight updates and likely could only be used to strike static targets to get to desired CEPs but if you really wanted to get the cost as low as possible, I could see this working, how well is another question.  

So like SAM command guidance, just opposite direction. The cost of the weapon itself has a potential for being lower than a gbu-12 or 54, but since we already have massive infrastructure for laser designators, the cost of figuring out how to equip the launch platform is probably making it not any less expensive overall.

[Clark Griswold]

3 hours ago, SurelySerious said:

So like SAM command guidance, just opposite direction. The cost of the weapon itself has a potential for being lower than a gbu-12 or 54, but since we already have massive infrastructure for laser designators, the cost of figuring out how to equip the launch platform is probably making it not any less expensive overall.

Yup - this is probably a moot point for the US and NATO partners as the investments in our PGMs have already been done but the Russians are a different story (concerning their SVP-24 targeting system).

Edited April 23, 2017 by Clark Griswold
minor

[Tank]

On 4/22/2017 at 2:58 PM, Clark Griswold said:

AFSOC would be my choice of MAJCOM for a LAAR but I'm referring to the entirety of COIN operations and efforts.  

We need a new or repurposed USG agency to serve as the lead agency when the USG commits resources, not just military, to a COIN-Recovery-Stabilization-Rebuilding Whole of Government mission.

Not quibbling with you but looking at the doctrinal definition of Special Operation:

Special operations are operations requiring unique modes of employment, tactical techniques, equipment and training often conducted in hostile, denied, or politically sensitive environments and characterized by one or more of the following: time sensitive, clandestine, low visibility, conducted with and/or through indigenous forces, requiring regional expertise, and/or a high degree of risk. 

https://doctrine.af.mil/download.jsp?filename=3-05-D02-SOF-Spec-Ops-Defined.pdf

LAAR or SCAR may not exactly fit the "special" of Special Ops, it is just that they (the MAJCOM) is just as a community open minded and not threatened by a LAAR to their traditional missions/platforms.

Hell yea, bring them to Duke Field or Hurby!!

Knowing the AF though, they'll f**k the whole thing up by putting them at Cannon...

[nsplayr]

14 hours ago, SurelySerious said:

So like SAM command guidance, just opposite direction. The cost of the weapon itself has a potential for being lower than a gbu-12 or 54, but since we already have massive infrastructure for laser designators, the cost of figuring out how to equip the launch platform is probably making it not any less expensive overall.

This concept is happening already with other PGMs using existing datalink infrastructure. Not meant to be a cost-reducer, but meant to increase accuracy for fast-moving targets that may escape outside of the view of the weapon's laser seeker during typical flight profiles. Look for more to come in the very near future.

Like I alluded to before, DoD and industry aren't spending R&D as much money on lower-cost solutions so much as they are spending those dollars on increasing first-pass, "clean-kill" capabilities. It's what the JTACs, GFCs and higher HQ demand, and if that means adding a datalink to an already expensive laser-guided, GPS-aided PGM, so be it.

The ideal weapon delivers in one shot from outside of visual & audio detection range, with no sonic boom, rocket motor bloom or other warning to the target, with fast time of flight, and delivers low CDE scores but high Pk in the target area. Right now you get to pick a couple of those options at the expense of the others - gonna have to science the shit out of today's weapons to work toward ideal.

My long-term prediction: lasers fulfil all of those requirements above...

[SurelySerious]

This concept is happening already with other PGMs using existing datalink infrastructure. Not meant to be a cost-reducer, but meant to increase accuracy for fast-moving targets that may escape outside of the view of the weapon's laser seeker during typical flight profiles. Look for more to come in the very near future.
Like I alluded to before, DoD and industry aren't spending R&D as much money on lower-cost solutions so much as they are spending those dollars on increasing first-pass, "clean-kill" capabilities. It's what the JTACs, GFCs and higher HQ demand, and if that means adding a datalink to an already expensive laser-guided, GPS-aided PGM, so be it.
The ideal weapon delivers in one shot from outside of visual & audio detection range, with no sonic boom, rocket motor bloom or other warning to the target, with fast time of flight, and delivers low CDE scores but high Pk in the target area. Right now you get to pick a couple of those options at the expense of the others - gonna have to science the shit out of today's weapons to work toward ideal.
My long-term prediction: lasers fulfil all of those requirements above...

Even a fast mover has to seriously crazy ivan a predictive 54 to not be within the seeker, but I suppose they're always looking for perfect.

[brabus]

they were disappointed in unit cost and that's why it never really caught on (wikipedia agrees with that article at around 30K). Cheaper than a Hellfire or Maverick but about the same amount as a small guided bomb. Hard to sell it as a Hellfire/Mavrick/GBU/SDB replacement unless it's dirt cheap 

It has greatly caught on all the way to the service levels, and is significantly cheaper than every PGM we're using in the current fights (sans a nose plug GBU-38...but that weapon cannot do what the AGR-20 can). Again, not saying we should be paying $25K for a rocket, but it beats the $100K+ Hellfires we're also shooting at an asshole riding a horse, and provides a capability to bring a lot more low-CDE firepower to the fight vs. fighters showing up with only bombs and being useless in many situations.

It may not be perfect, but for once we actually did something that surpassed spec, works well, is relatively cheap, and all in a fairly short timeframe for our typical acquisitions process.

[Lawman]

they were disappointed in unit cost and that's why it never really caught on (wikipedia agrees with that article at around 30K). Cheaper than a Hellfire or Maverick but about the same amount as a small guided bomb. Hard to sell it as a Hellfire/Mavrick/GBU/SDB replacement unless it's dirt cheap 

It has greatly caught on all the way to the service levels, and is significantly cheaper than every PGM we're using in the current fights (sans a nose plug GBU-38...but that weapon cannot do what the AGR-20 can). Again, not saying we should be paying $25K for a rocket, but it beats the $100K+ Hellfires we're also shooting at an asshole riding a horse, and provides a capability to bring a lot more low-CDE firepower to the fight vs. fighters showing up with only bombs and being useless in many situations.
It may not be perfect, but for once we actually did something that surpassed spec, works well, is relatively cheap, and all in a fairly short timeframe for our typical acquisitions process.


You need to look at some of the delivery limitations on it particularly it's angle on impact vs the bug splatter charts . Until they put a programmable trajectory it's never going to supplant Hellfire, especially when you factor in the R model having a programmable warhead while APKWS is essentially a very target position vs point of impact dependent hand grenade with only a single type of fusing.

Don't get me wrong we've shot them plenty (most of the Army's total inventory) but the time and place that I can use it is far more limited than Hellfire, but it wasn't designed to do what we are trying to do with it in this fight. Really it wasn't even designed for us, it was built as a way to put a PGM into the hands of air forces that own a lot of crappy planes/helicopters with old 7 shot pods they inherited from our Korea/Vietnam era weapon that is the Hydra system which is why it's totally self contained vs DAGR and other such systems.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Clark Griswold]

4 hours ago, Tank said:

Hell yea, bring them to Duke Field or Hurby!!

Knowing the AF though, they'll f**k the whole thing up by putting them at Cannon...

No, they'll do a study and determine that Thule is the best place to put all of them. 

I think back somewhere in this thread I came up with a list but going for take 2 on this idea:

Assume the AF pulls its head out of the rear orifice and buys 125. Assign 15 per regular squadron and the FTU gets 20 so 7 squadrons with even distribution.  

My humble suggestion would be 

FTU at Seymour-Johnson for training with the Army at Ft. Bragg and USMC out of Camp Lejune, others in the area but those readily come to mind.  Also, probably viable for a Reserve Associate unit and a good location IMO.

Regular unit locations and strategy/rationale:

AD & Reserve - Moody (FMS customers), Duke (SF community), Whiteman (train with USA/USMC out of Ft. Leavenworth) and DM (train with Ft. Huachuca).

ANG - AR ANG at Ft. Smith (allow dual quals with Reaper also recruit CSOs with a Comm Instrument ticket for RPA pilot quals), NM ANG at Kirkland AFB (AFSOC affiliated) and NV ANG at Creech (dual quals again with Reaper also recruit CSOs with a Comm Instrument ticket for RPA pilot quals and supporting JTAC training out of Nellis).

If a LAAR ever sees the light of day, having a plan on who is going to fly it and where the planes go along with a good why will help.

Again AF, just buy one...

[nsplayr]

19 minutes ago, brabus said:

Again, not saying we should be paying $25K for a rocket, but it beats the $100K+ Hellfires we're also shooting at an asshole riding a horse...

 ain't that the truth. I literally lol'd at the "asshole riding a horse," seen that one specifically more than once.

Also have seen probably ~$500K spent "triple-checking" that some low level facilitator was definitely dead out in the middle of the desert. Come on guys...even if it's a spectacular mobility kill or he's just grievously wounded, this guy is dozens of miles from even an Afghan-level of civilization and we're watching him...I'm pretty sure that's good enough to meet the intent of dead without clearing the whole stack hot on his corpse.

[busdriver]

AGR-20 utility for the AF has nothing to do with Hellfire.  If it can slow the KMU-572 expenditure rate, it's a win.

[nsplayr]

17 minutes ago, Clark Griswold said:

My humble suggestion would be...

Not just no, but hell no on many of these. Why, in our wildest dreams here on BO.net, are we basing this theoretical platform at lower 50% shitty bases that happen to be near shitty Army bases? Creech AFB in particular should be nuked from orbit after moving all of the assets there somewhere better...same can be said for about 4-5 other Air Force installations out there.

Also, I'm not sure why everyone keeps thinking you can just easily dual qual dudes in the MQ-9 as well as some other platform like light attack. RPA isn't just some side gig you can sluff off on comm guys or as an additional duty, it's a full-up mission that requires just as much attention as flying many other platforms. Especially since the GCS interface isn't ideal re: human factors and the missions being tasked to many MQ-9 units are increasingly challenging. Ask yourself how many guys are dual qual'd in two different mission airframes and why maybe that is.

Lastly, CSOs with commercial licences are not eligible for RPA pilot and haven't been for a long time...12U was (stupidly) shut down on the AD side at least 6 years ago. AFAIK that is the case, at least that's what they told me when I tried to apply in 2011 on AD.

Edited April 24, 2017 by nsplayr

[HU&W]

26 minutes ago, Clark Griswold said:

AD & Reserve - Moody (FMS customers), Duke (SF community), Whiteman (train with USA/USMC out of Ft. Leavenworth) and DM (train with Ft. Huachuca).

ANG - AR ANG at Ft. Smith (allow dual quals with Reaper also recruit CSOs with a Comm Instrument ticket for RPA pilot quals), NM ANG at Kirkland AFB (AFSOC affiliated) and NV ANG at Creech (dual quals again with Reaper also recruit CSOs with a Comm Instrument ticket for RPA pilot quals and supporting JTAC training out of Nellis).

 

Nope.  Maybe Duke.  Everything else is based on the reality of 2012, especially regarding MQ-9.

[Clark Griswold]

43 minutes ago, nsplayr said:

Not just no, but hell no on many of these. Why, in our wildest dreams here on BO.net, are we basing this theoretical platform at lower 50% shitty bases that happen to be near shitty Army bases? Creech AFB in particular should be nuked from orbit after moving all of the assets there somewhere better...same can be said for about 4-5 other Air Force installations out there.

Also, I'm not sure why everyone keeps thinking you can just easily dual qual dudes in the MQ-9 as well as some other platform like light attack. RPA isn't just some side gig you can sluff off on comm guys or as an additional duty, it's a full-up mission that requires just as much attention as flying many other platforms. Especially since the GCS interface isn't ideal re: human factors and the missions being tasked to many MQ-9 units are increasingly challenging. Ask yourself how many guys are dual qual'd in two different mission airframes and why maybe that is.

Lastly, CSOs with commercial licences are not eligible for RPA pilot and haven't been for a long time...12U was (stupidly) shut down on the AD side at least 6 years ago. AFAIK that is the case, at least that's what they told me when I tried to apply in 2011 on AD.

My musings are based on the observed institutional problems the LAAR is experiencing keeping it stillborn.

The RPA community thinks it is encroaching on their mission(s), the Strike/Attack community thinks it is a drain of limited resources and undermines the F-35 and large swaths of the DoD live in the fantasy that we can somehow extract ourselves from Iraq/Syria, Afghanistan, HOA and other theaters and return to preparing only for major conventional warfare, dream on.

A LAAR has to have institutional strategy along with meeting an operational need.  As it is a capability the majority of the leadership of the AF (military & civilian) are skeptical we need let alone we can afford in terms of money and manpower, it has to quash the arguments against it by thoughtfully designing its force/logistical structure to add value besides inexpensive ISR/Strike.

I realize that some of the proposed basing choices might not be the best in terms of QoL (especially Creech, its not Hell but you can see it from there) but considering the time in garrison, not deployed to other swanky destinations, what can it do to win friends and supporters?  Offer training synergies and access to capabilities that other FTUs or Centers of other branches might not have regular access to.

As to the dual qual I would offer a lot of guys already are dual qualified (ARC pilots who are Commercial/Airline pilots) and that it is possible to maintain proficiency in two MDS's.  Is it for everyone?  No.  Should it be as verboten as it is currently treated in the AF? No.  Should it be applied smartly to volunteers and those deemed capable of it? Yes. 

Also, I didn't imply the MQ-9 is not a full on qual with suggesting that LAAR aircrew could be dual qualified with it.  Just my suggestion that the individuals in the community are likely capable of it and the idea should not be taken off the table just because we don't currently do it.    

As to my statement on CSOs with Commercial Tickets being allowed RPA pilot quals that is my bad as I should have caveated that with either getting an 18X AFSC awarded via equivalent training recognized from their FAA ticket or reversing the policy back to 12U.

I have some staff stink on me from a few years back and from that experience of watching the sausage being made I realize that certain programs are always going to be under the gun having to prove their worth while the favored ones can be billions over budget, late, only meet reduced specs and Dad will still make excuses for them.  LAAR ain't one those, it is going to have to hustle, eat an excrement sandwich in some areas and still be suspect in the eyes of some.

30 minutes ago, HU&W said:

Nope.  Maybe Duke.  Everything else is based on the reality of 2012, especially regarding MQ-9.

Copy.  

Off the cuff and this is an honest question - where do you think these planes should be and where should the folks come from?  Nothing passive/aggressive but adding more cockpits to fill when the AF is hemorrhaging pilots is another hurdle in this effort to acquire a LAAR and I think that is a legit question to have an answer for when the nay sayers come out after the idea of getting one.

Edited April 24, 2017 by Clark Griswold
minor

[brabus]

You need to look at some of the delivery limitations on it particularly it's angle on impact vs the bug splatter charts . Until they put a programmable trajectory it's never going to supplant Hellfire, especially when you factor in the R model having a programmable warhead while APKWS is essentially a very target position vs point of impact dependent hand grenade with only a single type of fusing.

I'm 100% tracking capes and lims. It certainly is not a hell fire replacement, but I also don't have enough hands and feet to count the number of times I watched an R9 target something that was agr-20 wheelhouse. Or the number of times I've watched hell fire impact, dude runs away. The hell fire family is a great weapon, but the AGR-20 is no distant slouch. That said, I don't have much SA on the RW version. Clearly impact angle is far more limited when shot from RW than FW. As you said, this weapon is probably a far more significant capes increase for FW than RW.

[BFM this]

Flachettes.  It's whats for dinner.

[Tank]

14 hours ago, HU&W said:

Nope.  Maybe Duke.  Everything else is based on the reality of 2012, especially regarding MQ-9.

Duke Field - AFSOC AD and ARC Combat Aviation Advisirs (problem though is that Duke belongs to Eglin and getting anything done by Eglin in regards to AFSOC is difficult)

Pope AAF - AFSOC, great ranges, ample space, work directly with SF (problem is that it's now an Army base)

Moody AFB - already has the 81st FS, great ranges (problem is just general space to possibly put another squadron)

Others: DM AFB, Whiteman AFB, Kirtland AFB, Kelly AFB, Fort Smith ANG, Des Moines ANG, Ellington ANG, 

Edited April 24, 2017 by Tank

[xcraftllc]

12 hours ago, brabus said:

watched hell fire impact, dude runs away.

Yeah the regular old anti-tank Hellfires had a tendency to just plunge into the ground and blast dirt up. There were blast frag variants (Mike models) made which helped and now the Army is buying "Romeo" models which incorporate a multipurpose warnugget, it helps but nothing's guaranteed.

I have no experience on the subject but I suppose the rockets would work better since they shoot directly at the laser point and use the M151 warnugget right?

9 hours ago, BFM this said:

Flachettes.  It's whats for dinner.

Never had the chance to use those but a guy in my unit did some nice work with them on a couple of dudes in an open field!

Edited April 25, 2017 by xcraftllc
spelling

[Lawman]

You need to look at some of the delivery limitations on it particularly it's angle on impact vs the bug splatter charts . Until they put a programmable trajectory it's never going to supplant Hellfire, especially when you factor in the R model having a programmable warhead while APKWS is essentially a very target position vs point of impact dependent hand grenade with only a single type of fusing.

I'm 100% tracking capes and lims. It certainly is not a hell fire replacement, but I also don't have enough hands and feet to count the number of times I watched an R9 target something that was agr-20 wheelhouse. Or the number of times I've watched hell fire impact, dude runs away. The hell fire family is a great weapon, but the AGR-20 is no distant slouch. That said, I don't have much SA on the RW version. Clearly impact angle is far more limited when shot from RW than FW. As you said, this weapon is probably a far more significant capes increase for FW than RW.

 

 

We aren't shooting these things from RW altitudes and angles. 10k feet is 10k ft and it's the same rocket. It's all about what the rocket tries to do where it picks up guidance and comes in at the shallowest angle it can. That's great when you're talking about taking all that warheads lethality and delivering it into a target like a truck, but given the PD warheads blast/fragmentation it works exactly opposite against any sort of area target like a group of dudes around a mortar position.

 

We've pushed this up in Army circles to BAE and the answer isn't forthcoming on when/how they plan to fix it. I know the Marines were talking about a flechette version but then you hit a new problem of needing to know/control which rockets are in which tubes so you can properly match warhead to target because there is plenty a flechette can't do.

 

When you mix that with the R model 114 getting a programmable HOB setting to better combat that effect of driving into the dirt and killing its blast/frag lethality. I agree it's still aggravating as hell to see a guy get up from a Hellfire strike but a lot of the times we've seen that it's either due to poor gunnery technique driving the missile off target or effects like terrain which would make a PD even less effective due to it only having a PD fuse.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Clark Griswold]

9 hours ago, Tank said:

Duke Field - AFSOC AD and ARC Combat Aviation Advisirs (problem though is that Duke belongs to Eglin and getting anything done by Eglin in regards to AFSOC is difficult)

Pope AAF - AFSOC, great ranges, ample space, work directly with SF (problem is that it's now an Army base)

Moody AFB - already has the 81st FS, great ranges (problem is just general space to possibly put another squadron)

Others: DM AFB, Whiteman AFB, Kirtland AFB, Kelly AFB, Fort Smith ANG, Des Moines ANG, Ellington ANG, 

Agree that Duke Field is a good location but faces problems with range saturation.  Even with that factor, being at the hub of all things AFSOC is a must for LAAR.

As to Moody, if there is no space there then I would propose Maxwell or an Active Associate unit across town with the AL ANG at KMGM.  Could go either way (sts) for Moody ranges to the east or south for Eglin ranges and as the AL ANG is likely to get the F-35, a unique opportunity to train with a 5th gen asset on a regular basis.

If LAAR can get out of the chute, a good geographical distribution for valid and political/parochial reasons could help the program fend off efforts to kill it when other programs inevitably go over budget and turn cannibal.

I think we mostly consider LAAR in support of SOF ground forces but there has to be role/mission for training with conventional Army/USMC units, what would be an ideal base(s) for training with "Big Army" or USMC?

[Lawman]

Agree that Duke Field is a good location but faces problems with range saturation.  Even with that factor, being at the hub of all things AFSOC is a must for LAAR.
As to Moody, if there is no space there then I would propose Maxwell or an Active Associate unit across town with the AL ANG at KMGM.  Could go either way (sts) for Moody ranges to the east or south for Eglin ranges and as the AL ANG is likely to get the F-35, a unique opportunity to train with a 5th gen asset on a regular basis.
If LAAR can get out of the chute, a good geographical distribution for valid and political/parochial reasons could help the program fend off efforts to kill it when other programs inevitably go over budget and turn cannibal.
I think we mostly consider LAAR in support of SOF ground forces but there has to be role/mission for training with conventional Army/USMC units, what would be an ideal base(s) for training with "Big Army" or USMC?

The customers for this kind of thing (SOf/Rangers) have money to go TDY. More importantly there is literally a SOF group in every region of the country so it's not like you're gonna be off on your own unless you go to Hawaii/Alaska.

Pick a base wth good combined vehicle/air ranges or at least access/range to them. I'd say try an East/West model where you get the most bang for your buck with customers.

For example any reason you guys couldn't do Peterson with 10th group or Mountain Home where you have Orchard with all the Rangers/SOF from JBLM? Somewhere in the SE US to cover Bragg, Campbell, and Benning would take another huge swath of customers up.

The worst thing you could do is stick this thing somewhere like Cannon where you are hours away from anything that wants to use you by plane let alone by car.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk