Man, are we getting specificacious or what...
First off, I agree with more F-22s; i just don't think the AF has gone about it very well.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Entropy
And I agree with you on the problem with a mentality that demands the best at the expense of the good enough - something that seems to afflict military procurement in general.
True, it's the American way.
Quote:
Yes, true to a point, but as I discussed above, the dedicated CAS aircraft we have (A-10) doesn't appear to be clearly superior to other types of aircraft - at least based on what I've read in AAR's and LL's.
Who writes those??? :D
Quote:
The Marine's seem to get by just fine with an airframe not designed for CAS - the one that lost to the F-16 in the Air Forces lightweight fighter competition. ;)
Heh, not a great example. The Marines would prefer more Harriers or even better, an all JSF fleet because the F-18 while adequate is not a great CAS aircraft (not to mention that it would also blunt the AF demand for total theater control...). I'd also point out that the F-16 won the competition mostly because the USAF trusted Consolidated (GD) and didn't trust Northrop while the F-18 got the Navy nod mostly because it wasn't the F-16. Even then the Navy insisted it had to be built by a "Navy familiar house" thus the production contract went to McDonnell vice Northrop (before there was Northrop-Grumman).
Quote:
The point being that training and coordination are more important than a dedicated airframe.
I'd say almost equally but we are both entitled to our opinions.
Quote:
So in short, newer aircraft with better readiness rates allow you to do more and do it for a longer period of time and usually at less cost economically.
True but best is the enemy of... :D
Quote:
As Cliff pointed out, CAS is a whole different ballgame today - flying low and slow to properly ID targets is not necessary anymore, nor desirable most of the time.
and as I pointed out and all three of us know, that's very much situation dependent.
Quote:
It's why I don't understand the continuing interest in fielding a CAS-specific or COIN-specific aircraft such as the OV-10 or T-6. Those aircraft don't offer any advantage over current aircraft except for operating cost that I can see.
If you disregard ability to be based close to the action in a rough austere environment (anathema to the USAF, I know...), loiter and scan capability, repairability, training ease (and thus the ability to take less than premium grade Jocks) and a few other things, you're probably correct *.
Quote:
Wilf,
Exactly, so what advantage does an OV-10 provide over an existing aircraft that justifies buying, operating and maintaining a fleet of them?
See * above :D
Specificaciousness is my specific specialilty!
Quote:
Originally Posted by
120mm
The original post, if I recall correctly, had to do with the Air Force wearing out combat aircraft during a prolonged COIN campaign. I don't think you can rule out "cost" as an advantage. In fact, due to the lack of counter-air threat, and the prolonged nature of successful COIN efforts, "cost" which is a component of maintainability, is possibly the most important advantage an airframe can have.
Here's where you may be onto something, which adds to Ken's point:
Quote:
If you disregard ability to be based close to the action in a rough austere environment (anathema to the USAF, I know...), loiter and scan capability, repairability, training ease (and thus the ability to take less than premium grade Jocks) and a few other things, you're probably correct
Ok, I can see there are specific situations where that kind of aircraft would be more valuable and as Ken says, everything is situation dependent. Now, is it worth it to create a capability to fill that niche (and how much to create), as Ken might say, would doing so be a case of the best being an enemy of the good? I guess it comes down to how likely one thinks we'll be operating for long periods in austere, low threat environments in the future. Definitely something to think about.
You and I are probably dreaming in any case
Quote:
Originally Posted by
120mm
Agreed. It would take a revolutionary approach to acquisition, though, as once you add on requirements and specs, your cheap, effective COIN aircraft becomes an expensive, duplicated effort incredibly quickly, because the current acquisition system is built to do exactly that.
I smell a research project, there....:D
because not only the acquisition process (Heh -- little humor there...) but the big manufacturers (as I originally said ;) ) are attuned to obsolescence creation.
We ended WW II with three sizes of tracks and roadwheels and five power packs that had over 50% parts commonality throughout the range for all tracked vehicles. Rationalization to cut costs and increase efficiency and effectiveness. More to the point, the Navy ended up designing small classes of aircraft and ships to explore various approaches wherein rationalization and commonality were emphasized in an effort to get ideal and easily mass produced, durable and effective fighting equipment with no gold plating (think F8F) built in the future. Try that today and the Lobbyists would have a field day buying Congroids. BAE systems does not want to pay a license fee to GD for a track nor does Bath like paying one to Northrop Grumman...
Same thing applies with aircraft; gotta be proprietary in all things to minimize the competitors (and suppliers) profit.
I'm afraid we're stuck where we are... :(
"Theyy-rre Ba-a-a-ack" or Resurrection
of the living dead... :D
In previous discussions on the topic, Cliff has implied or said that there's very little or no difference in CAS efficiency between platforms and Entropy has said this:
Quote:
Yes, true to a point, but as I discussed above, the dedicated CAS aircraft we have (A-10) doesn't appear to be clearly superior to other types of aircraft - at least based on what I've read in AAR's and LL's. The Marine's seem to get by just fine with an airframe not designed for CAS - the one that lost to the F-16 in the Air Forces lightweight fighter competition. The point being that training and coordination are more important than a dedicated airframe.
Adding this a little later:
Quote:
Well, I agree with F-4's getting embarrassed by Skyhawks, etc., but that was 40 years ago. As Cliff pointed out, CAS is a whole different ballgame today - flying low and slow to properly ID targets is not necessary anymore, nor desirable most of the time. It's why I don't understand the continuing interest in fielding a CAS-specific or COIN-specific aircraft such as the OV-10 or T-6. Those aircraft don't offer any advantage over current aircraft except for operating cost that I can see.
The implication of all that being that the USAF is getting better at CAS -- no question form me on that. The further implication was that platforms were seen by the CAS recipients as immaterial and thus there was no reason not to go for multipurpose birds.
Based on experience, that latter was counter intuitive -- but I'm old and not current so I couldn't weigh in on that other than broadly philosophically. Until I did some unscientific research and talked to soldats and Marines recently returned from both theaters and asked specific questions. Anecdotal results for your edification follow:
● The perception of CAS being platform immaterial is dependent on who is asked. Joe could care less as long as satisfying booms are heard; Staff Officers are even less concerned with anything other than the end result. Thus the people most likely to be asked and to answer will say, ala the M4 which is the only rifle most have used; "It's good..." OTOH, ask the Officers and NCOs who ask for, use and see up close CAS and they'll almost universally tell you that the platform they select, given a choice by the JFAC / TACP or whomever, will be in order: The A-10, or then an Apache; then a Cobra and then any other -- with the Afghan guys putting in B1 /52 after the Hoptiflopter gunships and before fast birds.
● They do this because the Hog and Gunship pilots fly slower, fly lower, are far more accurate and, very importantly, are used to doing the mission and can and will talk to guys on the ground in depth and in knowledgable terms about what they see from the air. They're willing and able to talk in terms the ground guys identify with and this is not true with respect to any of the fast movers.
● An interjection we did not discuss on the thread was the AC-130; they were ranked, both theaters, directly behind or even in front of the Whirlyguns and their great sensors, willingness and ability to talk to and respond to guys on the ground were considered very important -- still, the A-10 came out way ahead, hands down.
● The Marines are still perceived as doing CAS a little better than the USAF (by both Army and Marines and as is only to be expected, it is after all a doctrinal tenet for the Corps as opposed to a must do but unloved mission) and a part of this is their total willingness and ability to use their pods to provide eyes in the sky, they routinely volunteer to do it. They see it as part of the job while the perception is that most USAF fast movers don't like to bother with it. The British and Dutch also got good comments (and their Apaches particularly so).
● This also confirms what both Cliff and Entropy said, that training and coordination are important. I'd merely add that while that's certainly true, the type of training is most important.
● I think it does however, certainly raise a significant question on platforms; not least that the type and planned use of the platform affects the mindset of its operator... :eek:
I raise the unwanted dead not to debate the need for the Air Force or for air superiority -- those are givens -- nor to pick further squabbles or argue about or for platforms (reminder; I'm an F-22 and an F-35 supporter :cool:) but merely to add some more information to the discussion. It is, as I said, totally anecdotal information and from a small (but I think knowledgeable and reliable) sample, however, it tracks to me and is probably worth at least some consideration by you guys in Blue...
Not that simple, I don't think....
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Cavguy
With a 10 digit grid and JDAMs the bombs can be put where needed as long as the guy on the ground is accurate.
I can see several problems with that. First, your statement is correct as long as GPS is up insofar as own location is concerned. Distant locations are not ALWAYS that precisely located. Then, if your GPS (or the JDAMs...) is out...
Second, your statement is correct for the most part for Iraq where there are more JTACs per capita and the possiblity of using the laser terminal guidance in bad weather is not too significant. It is more problematic in Afghanistan. Who knows what conditions will be in the next one...
The Marines -- sensibly IMO -- want to train Rifle Squad Leaders to call in air. There will be many who object to that (the USAF already has...) on safety grounds. Lack of trust and faith in training, I say, I know too many NCOs who called in Air in too many places -- including both current theaters of operations -- to think other than that is a good idea. However, good idea or not, the likelihood of all those guys being able to comsistently provide accurate ten digit target grids is not good. I also submit that it doesn't usually have to be that good in most combat situation and it certainly will be unnecessary in MCO or more intense operations than in Iraq -- which aren't going away.
One thing that almost all the A-10 and AC 130 plus the gunships praise I heard cited was the gun. Everyone liked the gun but particularly the guys from the 'Stan where there isn't an urban constraint and firefights with large groups in the open are more common. As a couple of people said, "the others have one but it's only a 20mm for the fast kids and they aren't nearly as accurate as due to speed and altitude." The A-10, the AC-130 and the AH-64 can lay down 25 or 30mm shells tens of meters from you, the others cannot do that. Given the vagaries of weather, electronic glitches and such, the gun is a reassuring capability and it gets a lot of use.
ADDED: Consider also that a JDAM or other precision munition can take out a room or a building and, by definition, most everyone in said structure or part thereof. OTOH, given a ragged line of 50 bad guys with minimal cover in a field environment (much less in mountains) and that weapon might get five to ten of them. Conversely, the gun can do a far better job in that environment -- and bigger, lower and slower is better...
Quote:
I think the main argument for a prop or simpler plane is that the USAF is flying the wings off of expensive fighters to do a job a cheaper airframe (both cost/maint) could do the same, given the capability of precision munitions.
True provided the limitations of the precision munitions aren't factors.
True dat. I think that's an excellent point.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Cavguy
Don't get me wrong Ken - I LOVE the AC-130, and haven't ever used an A-10. Great airframe. For COIN/Small wars I guess I wonder about the economic advantage of flying F-15E's and F-16's to do what a cheaper airframe could do instead.
One could probably buy three or four "Son of Hog" for the price of one F-16 Block 50/60 or one F-35. Hmm. 'zat mean six or so for an F-22? (Kidding, AF guys; we need 22s and 35s as well as Tankers. It's just future bombers I'm less sure about :wry: ).
Maybe some day they'll get the UAVs flexible and reliable enough to do an unmanned dedicated CAS type mit Maschinenkanone... ;)
You're welcome and I agree
with your last -- that would be the height of kewel... :cool::cool:
On the thanks they're really due to several folks who put up with my inane questions; H/T and thanks are really due them, I are merely a retarded conduit. I'm still trying to track down a local acquaintance nephew who's a S/Sgt AFSOC JTAC; we keep missing each other. That boy doesn't stay at Hurlburt very long at a clip.. :wry: