COIN CAS

[Scimitar]

At some point recently IIRC someone here was lamenting the USAFs lack of slow CAS platforms such as the Vietnam era A-1 Skyraider.

Sorry that I can't track down the thread, but I believe congress may have heard the grumbling...sort of.

http://www.defensetech.org/archives/003887.html?wh=wh

Moderators please delete or move if this is inappropriate or incorrectly posted.

Scimitar

[Scimitar]

A COIN Aircraft Comeback

This blog has repeatedly asked the question: Why doesn't the US Air Force operate a counter-insurgency (COIN) aircraft? And I don't mean an F-16 with an M61 Vulcan strafing a ground target, but an ugly-looking, turboprop-powered, low and slow aircraft like the A-1 Skyraider, which was used so effectively in Vietnam.

It (finally) appears that the USAF has been asking itself the same question, and an article published today in the service's official Air & Space Power Journal makes the following conclusion:

"Realistically, the new right-tech platform may be an unmanned aerial system, but to create the opening for a long-term enabling plan, the USAF should first develop a strategy for exportable COIN technologies. If the F-20 legacy still applies, it also means that the USAF should operate these platforms in its own inventory."

The author's chain of reasoning goes like this:

1. The USAF should remain focused on the non-COIN fight and let its lesser-funded coalition partners do the COIN dirty work.

2. This means the USAF needs to be able to offer these partners an exportable aircraft.

3. The Northrop F-20 was the last time the USAF tried to sell an aircraft to partners that it didn't buy itself, and the fighter flopped on the export market. No one wanted to buy an aircraft that lacked a USAF-supported supply chain.

4. Ergo sum, the USAF needs to buy its own inventory of COIN aircraft, in order for it to have an exportable product to offer to the nations who actually need such an aircraft.

The author pointedly declines to promote a specific platform, but she probably doesn't have to.

Congress may have already decided the issue with an earmark found in the 2008 US defense appropriations bill.

Senator Sam Brownback, of Kansas, has earmarked $3 million in research and development funds for the AT-6B, the Wichita-based Hawker Beechcraft product that is often marketed as a COIN aircraft. The funds have been allocated to the Air National Guard.

Other would-be competitors are the Embraer EMB-314 Super Tucano and the US Aircraft A-67 Dragon.

-- Stephen Trimble

[jatx]

The EMB-314 ALX looks like just the ticket!

http://www.airforce-technology.com/p.../super_tucano/

What?

No one offering a turboprop updated P51?


Actually, considering that the AT-6 is based on the T-6 Texan (which has a huge existing logistical support worldwide), the AT-6 should have the inside track.

[The Reaper]

Hmm, the EMB-314 ALX Super Tucano has essentially the same speed as the WW II era Skyraider, 65% of the endurance, and less than half of the payload, to say nothing of the reduced survivability.

I guess the AF wants a stunt plane, even for CAS guys, and would take that over a new version of the A-10.

Speaking of which, the twin engine A-10 packs 16,000 lbs. of ordnance, as opposed to 3,300 lbs. on the Super Tucano, not to mention the cannon, is one of the most survivable CAS platforms in the world, and flies much faster than the Super Tucano. I have worked with Tucanos, and they are no dedicated CAS platform.

The question I have is why, after six years of FID, UW, COIN, and LIC, with huge requirements for CAS (and no requirements for air superiority, BAI, etc.) are there less than 200 dedicated CAS birds (A-10s) in the AF inventory? BTW, you can put lipstick on a pig, but an F-15E is not a CAS aircraft, IMHO.

TR

[Retired W4]

Amen, TR.

All these PT-6 driven, single engine trainers look pretty anemic compared to the old A-1, and especially next to the 70's era A-10. I think there are more A-10s parked in the bone yard than operational.

[The Reaper]

Originally Posted by Retired W4

Amen, TR.

All these PT-6 driven, single engine trainers look pretty anemic compared to the old A-1, and especially next to the 70's era A-10. I think there are more A-10s parked in the bone yard than operational.

Good guess.

715 built, 356 still flying, only 128 active duty in A-10 configuration. 75 OA-10s on AD. Remainder still flying are in Air Guard or reserve status.

No follow-on in sight, been over 30 years since it was fielded. No, a few F-35s are not an acceptable substitute.

Less than $12 million each for the A-10s, a bargain in today's dollars.

TR

I've heard, although I don't know how true it is, that the fighter jockies who run the AF got an life extension/upgrade program for the A10 cancelled.

[CPTAUSRET]

I loved the "Sandies" in VN, they had plenty of firepower, could loiter, could absorb punishment, and they could dish it out!

[Defender968]

[QUOTE=I guess the AF wants a stunt plane, even for CAS guys, and would take that over a new version of the A-10.

The question I have is why, after six years of FID, UW, COIN, and LIC, with huge requirements for CAS (and no requirements for air superiority, BAI, etc.) are there less than 200 dedicated CAS birds (A-10s) in the AF inventory? BTW, you can put lipstick on a pig, but an F-15E is not a CAS aircraft, IMHO.TR QUOTE]

TR I know that may have been a rhetorical question but let me take a stab at answering it anyway. As an AF guy who's not a pilot but who deals with pilots more than most, (and who's seriously thinking of going Blue to Green because of it). The answer is that the Air Force’s primary purpose is making generals not winning wars, and at the end of the day AF generals are mostly fighter pilots. Now with that being said some would argue that the A-10 is a fighter, and I would agree, however it does not have an Air to Air capability and thus most Air Force fighter pilots want nothing to do with it, because it's not sexy like an F-15, F-16, or F-22, and most AF fighter pilots would only do air to air every day if it were left up to them. The reality is the AF does not really like CAS because it's in support of ground troops, thus relegating their 30 million dollar aircraft to an advanced artillery piece.

You really have to understand the mindset of AF fighter pilot to realize why we will probably never buy another purely CAS airframe. They want to win wars by themselves by winning air superiority and then by dropping bombs. The Fighter pilot thinks his tool is not only the best, but the only one that should be used, even if it's not the best or most suited for the job, (I can give a great example). The reason for this is that the AF spends most of its time teaching them how to be really good pilots and how to become Generals but rarely talks about their role in the greater scheme. The AF also doesn't teach it's leaders (pilots) about other military capabilities that are not planes. Also unfortunately the success the AF enjoyed in Desert Storm and the Balkans reinforced the idea of winning wars without boots on the ground. The AF is still holding onto that idea even though it has nothing to do with the war we are fighting now, the AF is very slow to change even though in this conflict CAS is the only way the AF can remain relevant, outside of logistical support of course.

A perfect example of the AF one peg for every hole mindset was displayed in an exercise we had at my base a couple of weeks ago. I'm part of the active duty threat working group (TWG), I represent the reserve wing on base on the TWG. We were having a Force Protection exercise, the scenario was a bus had come on base filled with civilians on a tour. One of the civilians on the bus had a 9mm handgun, shot two of the other civilians on the bus and parked the bus in the middle of the base. Simple enough, barricaded suspect with hostages on base. We have procedures, we put them into effect. The active duty Security Forces troops had a cordon set up, plenty of armed troops with eyes on target. We call in some other assets I won't go into in this forum, but the situation is being handled as it should be. Then the insanity began, someone came in and asked the intel rep on the TWG for grid coordinates for the bus. I knew that was a bad sign so after he gave them I asked him why they needed a 10 digit for the bus as it's on base and we know exactly where it is. He replied they needed them for a 9 line, I nearly lost my mind, but I managed to maintain composure. We were recalled back into the main room of the command post where the wing commander begins by telling the maintenance personnel to load 20 mm bullets onto a fighter. He wanted to have the capability. Then he asked if we could get a TAC-P to help. Now keep in mind this is all for a guy with a 9mm on a bus, on base, in the states, and the O-6 base commander, a fighter pilot wants to attack a stationary target, which is filled with innocent civilians, surrounded by security forces, and other first responders within 100m of the bus with his aircraft going well over 250 knots. Thankfully he decided against strafing the bus, finally... but the fact that the only way he could think of to deal with the threat was to use a fighter aircraft truly shows the AF fighter pilot mindset. If we had wanted to kill everyone on the bus, which I'm by no means suggesting, but is exactly what would have happened if you hit it with a volley of 20mm cannon fire, there were simpler, safer, and every bit as effective ways to do it, but pilots only think in one dimension, threat = plane to solve. It never occurred to him that had they attacked the bus with the jet they likely would have killed many of the Security Forces personnel and who know who else around, not to mention it would not have been legal but now we're really getting into the weeds.

[Retired W4]

The civilian version (CF-34 re:Challenger's engines) of the A-10 engine has been improved greatly over the years. It has more thrust and fuel efficiency, and while I'm no engineer, could probably be retrofitted easily to the A-10. There have been several good "gee-wizz" mods to the old Wart Hog, but more power at altitude would be welcomed.

We all know what makes airplanes fly. MONEY.

[Defender968]

I jacked up the quote function, sorry TR.

[x-factor]

The last CAS/A-10 discussion:
http://www.professionalsoldiers.com/...ad.php?t=14905

Originally Posted by Defender968

the AF is very slow to change even though in this conflict CAS is the only way the AF can remain relevant, outside of logistical support of course.

ISR and time-sensitive strike aren't relevant?

[Scimitar]

Stats

The 160th alone has a net asset of 125 units worth $2.55b
A flight of 20 x A-10s would cost 192m
That's barely 7.5% of total asset base
SOCOM has its own line to the budget.

This doesn't seem like a red tape or money problem

Perhaps SOCOM genuinely believes that the Boeing AH-64D Apache attack helicopter is a sufficient CAS platform.

Scimitar

[Team Sergeant]

Originally Posted by Scimitar

Stats

The 160th alone has a net asset of 125 units worth $2.55b
A flight of 20 x A-10s would cost 192m
That's barely 7.5% of total asset base
SOCOM has its own line to the budget.

This doesn't seem like a red tape or money problem

Perhaps SOCOM genuinely believes that the Boeing AH-64D Apache attack helicopter is a sufficient CAS platform.

Scimitar

You're looking at the picture in a small way.

Air Force fighter pilots like to go fast, like fast airplanes.

The current AF generals that run the Air Force are all former fighter pilots, hence no slow airplanes, or airplanes dedicated to CAS, ain't going to happen, not while fighter pilots are in charge.

Remember the F-117 "Fighter" (actually bomber) aircraft? Every wonder why it's black and called a "fighter" A/C? Not because it was the best color choice, hell no, it was painted black because the Air Forces fighter pilots wanted it black and called a fighter for the same reason, even though it has ZERO air to air capabilities.

Get the picture?