Moving the Rhod. Fire Force concept to Afghanistan?

[Ken White]

Thanks for the clarification. Which of the fixed wing were able to provide the closest CAS?

and only did CAS in an emergency. Of the two, the 0-1 was slower and thus able to do closer strikes. The OV-10 was a super aircraft, was also assigned as a FAC bird but had a useful load, was really maneuverable and was able to take care of many tasks with out calling in the big guys. Depending on the type rocket they had available, they could and would put some 2.75" warheads about 5 meters out.

Yes the little Cessna 337G which we called the Lynx was a sweetheart. .303 Browning Guns on top, 37mm SNEB and 18 gal Frantan (napalm) under each wing and we mostly had two of them around was all we really needed.

Was a good bird, yours were made by Reims in France under Cessna license. A few years later, when the US would not sell the Shah of Iran some O-2s for some obscure reason, he went to Reims and bought a dozen Lynx copies...

[baboon6]

and only did CAS in an emergency. Of the two, the 0-1 was slower and thus able to do closer strikes. The OV-10 was a super aircraft, was also assigned as a FAC bird but had a useful load, was really maneuverable and was able to take care of many tasks with out calling in the big guys. Depending on the type rocket they had available, they could and would put some 2.75" warheads about 5 meters out.Was a good bird, yours were made by Reims in France under Cessna license. A few years later, when the US would not sell the Shah of Iran some O-2s for some obscure reason, he went to Reims and bought a dozen Lynx copies...

The OV-10 was used in the dedicated attack role by the US Navy squadron VAL-4 in the Mekong Delta:

http://www.blackpony.org/

[Ken White]

The OV-10 was used in the dedicated attack role by the US Navy squadron VAL-4 in the Mekong Delta:

However, IIRC, they lost almost half the Squadron's birds to ground fire or accidents and had to buy replacements. Plus that was only one Squadron, 18 birds IIRC.. The Marines were the first to buy and they had two Squadrons, half OV-10A, half OV-10D, a dedicated night 'observation' variant with a 20mm M61 turret slaved to the FLIR. The Marines split the difference and used the OV-10A as a FAC bird that could do light strike and the 10D as a night attack plane.

The Air Force bought almost 200 and initially used the Bronc solely as a FAC Bird. Some FACs were more aggressive than others and those guys convinced a reluctant AF to let them to CAS missions. I think they ran a test of a dedicated squadron but ended up with most assigned as FAC aircraft. The hard charger FACs did more. People thing...

[jcustis]

I often wonder how much use of tracking is made of in wars these days and who does it.

We absolutely do use tracking techniques today, and in fact we took three knuckleheads in after tracking them across about six klicks from the point where they ditched their pickup truck carrying a metric buttload of opium. Now, it wasn't a fair track, as they were on foot, high on dope, and dehydrated, and our boys were in LAV-25s and dashing across open desert where the tracks were fresh and easier to follow, but the fact that the intel summary referred to the track as "spoor" warmed me a bit.

The Marine Corps has embraced mantracking concepts in its Combat Hunter program, and although it is not a overly detailed or wholly comprehensive approach to the business of tracking, it does the task enough justice to get the boys to thinking and acting in the right direction.

Basic tracking TTPs were taught when I was attending basic infantryman training as a PFC 18 years ago, and at some point it died out. Iraq and Afghanistan brought that back into vogue.

[JMA]

We absolutely do use tracking techniques today, and in fact we took three knuckleheads in after tracking them across about six klicks from the point where they ditched their pickup truck carrying a metric buttload of opium. Now, it wasn't a fair track, as they were on foot, high on dope, and dehydrated, and our boys were in LAV-25s and dashing across open desert where the tracks were fresh and easier to follow, but the fact that the intel summary referred to the track as "spoor" warmed me a bit.

The Marine Corps has embraced mantracking concepts in its Combat Hunter program, and although it is not a overly detailed or wholly comprehensive approach to the business of tracking, it does the task enough justice to get the boys to thinking and acting in the right direction.

Basic tracking TTPs were taught when I was attending basic infantryman training as a PFC 18 years ago, and at some point it died out. Iraq and Afghanistan brought that back into vogue.

Good to hear some guys out there are hungry to "close and kill". Well I hope it does not take long before the USMC at least has a healthy combat tracking ability up and running (their moto should be "who are those guys?"

And yes "sign" and "spoor" is what tracking is all about.

Heres some (very) old stuff on RURAL TRACKING OPERATIONS with some formations at the Appendices

Note: The referred 32Z was a rifle grenade. The idea of the trackers and their flank guards loading these fell away with time.

And some general stuff on combat tracking

[JMA]

However, IIRC, they lost almost half the Squadron's birds to ground fire or accidents and had to buy replacements. Plus that was only one Squadron, 18 birds IIRC.. The Marines were the first to buy and they had two Squadrons, half OV-10A, half OV-10D, a dedicated night 'observation' variant with a 20mm M61 turret slaved to the FLIR. The Marines split the difference and used the OV-10A as a FAC bird that could do light strike and the 10D as a night attack plane.

The Air Force bought almost 200 and initially used the Bronc solely as a FAC Bird. Some FACs were more aggressive than others and those guys convinced a reluctant AF to let them to CAS missions. I think they ran a test of a dedicated squadron but ended up with most assigned as FAC aircraft. The hard charger FACs did more. People thing...

What makes for a "hard charger" pilot? Those are the boys you need.

[Ken White]

What makes for a "hard charger" pilot? Those are the boys you need.

one Air force and one old Marine Aviator -- both fighter pilots -- agree that selection can only tell part of it; that combat experience (good or bad) can have impacts that are difficult to foretell; current in which one is serving Squadron leadership can make a difference either way; the aircraft being flown is important (the OV-10, for example was woefully underpowered and thus couldn't get out of trouble as easily as the O2/Cessna 337; and that the type of airplane one first flew operationally has a big impact. The Marine thinks that last two are by far the most significant, he contends there was a major difference in attitude (as opposed to capability, which was pretty much a wash) between Navy F8 and F4 pilots and between Marine F8 or A4 pilots and their F4 counterparts.

He also contended it was hilarious to watch an ex A4 pilot get the stick of a big fat F4 for the first time...

An even older Marine Aviator agreed and said he'd noticed a slight difference in attitudes and aggressiveness between Marine F4U Corsair pilots and AD Skyraider pilots during the Corps brief possession of a single Squadron of the latter in Korea. Both were great aircraft and really good for CAS but they had very different flying characteristics.

Today, there are significant political constraints in the US. Our Congress, to avoid having to respond to complaints about process, is insistent that all military selection processes be 'objective' and 'fair' -- both to the point of overruling operational capability if of not sheer idiocy. Aggressiveness today as a characteristic is more likely to be frowned upon than to find favor (We're in one of our 'nice guy' phases -- those come and go ). It will stay that way unless we get in a big war, then it'll go away totally until peace returns...

Probably one of the Board's airplane driver types can add more (certainly more current than the views of four ORFs, one of whom is dumb grunt ) and far better info.

[JMA]

one Air force and one old Marine Aviator -- both fighter pilots -- agree that selection can only tell part of it; that combat experience (good or bad) can have impacts that are difficult to foretell; current in which one is serving Squadron leadership can make a difference either way; the aircraft being flown is important (the OV-10, for example was woefully underpowered and thus couldn't get out of trouble as easily as the O2/Cessna 337; and that the type of airplane one first flew operationally has a big impact. The Marine thinks that last two are by far the most significant, he contends there was a major difference in attitude (as opposed to capability, which was pretty much a wash) between Navy F8 and F4 pilots and between Marine F8 or A4 pilots and their F4 counterparts.

He also contended it was hilarious to watch an ex A4 pilot get the stick of a big fat F4 for the first time...

An even older Marine Aviator agreed and said he'd noticed a slight difference in attitudes and aggressiveness between Marine F4U Corsair pilots and AD Skyraider pilots during the Corps brief possession of a single Squadron of the latter in Korea. Both were great aircraft and really good for CAS but they had very different flying characteristics.

Today, there are significant political constraints in the US. Our Congress, to avoid having to respond to complaints about process, is insistent that all military selection processes be 'objective' and 'fair' -- both to the point of overruling operational capability if of not sheer idiocy. Aggressiveness today as a characteristic is more likely to be frowned upon than to find favor (We're in one of our 'nice guy' phases -- those come and go ). It will stay that way unless we get in a big war, then it'll go away totally until peace returns...

Probably one of the Board's airplane driver types can add more (certainly more current than the views of four ORFs, one of whom is dumb grunt ) and far better info.

Thanks for the reply. I would have thought that they could somehow devise an assessment of the actual pilots to see how they measure against actual performance. meaning you know who the "hard chargers" are and now are looking for common characteristics. Once in possession of these they could be applied to selecting pilots to fly certain aircraft types. Don't need a "hard charger" to fly an air refueling tanker, for example, but sure need them for CAS aircraft and gunships.

[Rifleman]

This is a little bit of a thread hijack but I think most people will enjoy this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8r9EO...eature=related

It's not about applying the Rhodesian fire force concept to Afgahnistan but it is about a "fire force" of sorts, and it relates to some of the things brought up in this thread.

[Ken White]

...they could somehow devise an assessment of the actual pilots to see how they measure against actual performance. meaning you know who the "hard chargers" are and now are looking for common characteristics.

However, two things intrude:

Number of type pilots needed and desires of would be (and serving) pilots. Sometimes people have to do things they do not want to do and they get annoyed and leave as soon as they can legally do so -- and while they're in that job they didn't want, they will not do as good a job as might otherwise be possible.

The previously mentioned statutory requirement for 'fairness' in all things means that occasionally a marginal type must be allowed to do a job he or she may not be totally suited for. Don't read that as a slam on female pilots, some of them are more Tiger like than a lot of guys.

Add the fact that a bad combat experience can breed excessive caution, a risk averse Commander can insist on strict obedience to the 'rules.' All sorts of thing intrude during and after a really effective selection process. Selection for a specific quality is easy, maintaining that in the face of diverse requirements and situations is less so. In this case, there is an easy answer -- but the solution is not so easy. Happens when you deal with people, the pesky creatures will not always stay the way you wish them to.....

[carl]

Probably one of the Board's airplane driver types can add more (certainly more current than the views of four ORFs, one of whom is dumb grunt ) and far better info.

I've been thinking about "what makes a hard charger pilot?" I have no military flying experience but a lot of plain old flying experience. It is probably well to consider this. Most pilots get into the game because they want to fly and zoom around the sky. Everything else is secondary. Perhaps you should be looking for a pilot whose desire to fight is as strong or stronger than the desire to fly.