The decision will likely be made this week.
Big pow-wow of AF generals this week (Corona).
http://www.airforcetimes.com/news/20...rfare_053109w/
They'll likely make a decision on the irregular warfare wing. This won't necessarily mean the aircraft they will buy will be set, but they will at least lay out the requirements. Should be interesting to see the results.
V/R,
Cliff
Nobody calls the A-10 the T-bolt 2...
except maybe Republic (well, now Boeing owns the contracts).
It's the Warthog, or just Hog.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
luckyroll
I'm guessing you like the Thunderbolt 2. The problem with the T-bolt 2 is that it has no turning radius= very poor manuverability compared to prop craft and can only hold a slow pattern for a few seconds before you have to dip back into the engines and give the stick a little tug. Atleast this is what my sisters boyfriend tells me. He flies Hornets in the Corps, but was a Hog (t-bolt 2) pilot before that.
The A-10 has a better turn radius than the Hornet.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...craft/a-10.htm
Turn radius is a function of speed vs. G. The Hog can pull 7.33 gs max. It's turn radius down low ranges from just over 1000' with flaps to 2000' without. A turboprop could turn tighter, but only by flying slower... which doesn't do you too much good. A-10s fly at 200-300 knots, which isn't too much faster than most turboprops.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
luckyroll
He also said that at those low speeds it was insanely rough and that hard jolting would sometimes cause the 30mm to jam. He said the feel is similar to flying a commercial jet at very low speeds and altitudes.
Any aircraft at low altitude is going to have a bumpier ride. The lower the wing loading, the harder the ride. The A-10 doesn't have a ridiculously low wing loading. An F-15C at low altitude is much worse.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
luckyroll
But, he said it almost impossible to tear it apart with heavy fire, or, anything else for that matter( thanks to carbon fibre covered ceramic spawl plates).
The Hog is one of the most survivable aircraft ever. It also has a lot of foam inside it to reduce spalling from hits.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
luckyroll
But, it is a flying tank and is designed to do exactly what it does, included in that is the fact that it has little manuverability. That is so you don't overshoot or, have to dip to keep your point of aim on a target when your coming in on top of it. This is what I'm told about that aircraft and it seems to make sense. He even said that turboprop "bug bashers" are better for serving alot of the roles that the A-10 serves and more. I called and asked him just to see what he said, but, this is only one opinion of one pilot. But, aside from the fact that you can't hardly take an A-10 down, I think a turboprop is just as good in it's own right.
But the idea of recip engine "horse fly" planes was a little silly now that I think about it in terms of the US armed forces. Where in the hell would they get AvGas and why would they want to deal with that?! Although to me it still makes sense for the private sec.
I respectfully have to disagree. The A-10 was designed to destroy Soviet armor in the face of intense AAA, MANPADs, and SAMs. It does that exceptionally well. As for CAS for COIN efforts, the A-10C with targeting pods and GPS weapons is excellent for CAS.
The reason why the USAF is looking at AT-6s or Tucanos for the COIN mission is because it is not only cheap, uses a little less gas, but also because you could easily train indigenous forces on the AT-6 and then sell them their own aircraft.
The irregular warfare wing would not just support our own forces (the A-10 is probably a better platform for that as several folks have pointed out) but also work the training and by/through/with portion of the COIN fight. After all, the ultimate goal in COIN is for the indigenous forces to be able to stand on their own as part of a legitimate government.
V/R,
Cliff
COIN: Is Air Control The Answer?
Counterinsurgency
Is “Air Control” the Answer?
by Major Angelina M. Maguinness, Small Wars Journal
Counterinsurgency: Is “Air Control” the Answer? (Full PDF Article)
Within the last few years, many airpower theorists advocated for the creation of a more air-centric approach to counterinsurgency (COIN) warfare. They point to modern airpower successes as the central component in military strategies, such as the successes in Bosnia in 1995, in Kosovo in 1998, and in the air policing operations conducted over Iraq from 1991 to 2003. Other airpower proponents decry the lack of “air-mindedness” and the short attention given to airpower in the 2007 United States (US) Army and Marine Corps Field Manual (FM) 3-24 Counterinsurgency. They call for a truly joint COIN doctrine that recognizes and leverages airpower’s combat capabilities instead of relegating its use solely to support for ground forces.
Many of these arguments are reminiscent of the early airpower zealots who believed airpower’s emerging technical capabilities promised less costs in money, lives, and resources with equal or better results than the use of large armies. Airpower, however, is not a cure-all in COIN, as demonstrated by Britain’s foray into colonial policing from 1919 to 1939. These lessons are applicable today, as military leaders continue to explore alternatives and supplements to existing American COIN strategy in Afghanistan and Iraq. While there is no doubt airpower plays a prominent role within COIN strategy, airpower’s most prudent use should not be as a primarily offensive weapon but as a component within a restrained combined arms approach.
A far better report with a lot of detailed research is linked below. Including actual messages sent to the population as part of the information campaign. Use of 5 pound bombs to limit damage and Bombing to interrupt as opposed to bombing to damage. Written by a real Air Force Officer not an Intelligence Officer.
http://aupress.maxwell.af.mil/saas_T...a/longoria.pdf
That's probably a good question, back in
my day, the CCT Squirrels were accused of being far and away too Army - oriented by the rest of the AF ...:wry:
I think that obtaining accurate intel to adequately
Quote:
Originally Posted by
slapout9
.... My Opinion... in Iraq no, In Afghanistan it may be a viable option. But we need some better Intelligence to determine the answer.
use air power for 'policing' is unlikely. The Afghans are pretty wily and more than willing to shop each other.
Add to that the lack of infrastructure to target, the dispersion factor (by five categories -- individual, family, clan, tribe, race -- and geographically, that's a big country, about 1.5 times the size of Iraq), the essential rural nature and location of most of the populace and the terrain and I'm doubtful it could be made to work.
Why do you think it might?