Aviation in COIN (merged thread)

[slapout9]

Hi carl, I know some of the first Huey gunships had motor rounds mounted vertically just as you mentioned. They were very effective and the Air Force pitched a fit so it was stopped. They want let you (Army) use anything that they consider a bomb.

Point 2. I think the Air Force would complain anyway because they want to fill the sky with armed UAV's which is why there is such a fight going on about who will control them. There is another system close to what you are talking about that involves an electric system firing mechanism. Very advanced and very cool to. They adapted it to make the police officers handgun of the future. If I can find the website agin I will post the link.

[slapout9]

carl, check this out. this is the system I was talking about...it is made in Australia. Anything from a handgun to aircraft delivered precision munitions.


http://youtube.com/watch?v=iX6YvWxtrxw

[selil]

Point 2. I think the Air Force would complain anyway because they want to fill the sky with armed UAV's which is why there is such a fight going on about who will control them.

I talked to an Air Force General and asked him point blank if he thought UAV's could serve the roll of CAS and his answer was yes but not likely.

[Stan]

Hi Carl !
An intriguing idea, but wouldn’t a reduced version of the AC-130H be a better candidate ? Say the C-160 Transall - the platform is both tried and true and would be damn intimidating to the enemy.

I don’t see the immediate benefit in employing GPS-guided gravity bombs. 250 pounders would be devastating though ! We just dug up several Soviet-era 100K FAB-100 bombs here. They are anything but small and even the controlled detonation showered stones and sand more than 300 meters (broke our vehicle’s windshield).

The Army has some fantastic arty folks that can already pin a 105 round on a nat’s butt. Hell, even the airmen on the 130s can accurately employ the M1A1 howitzer.

So, we’ve adequately removed the term 'bomb' and replaced it with 'projectile', and now just need a few aircraft from the Air Force

Slap, wicked weapon !

[slapout9]

Hi selil, Interesting comment by the Air Force. I don't think they want to use UAV's as a CAS weapon at all. I think it is more in line with their theory of Air Occupation similar to their Air Policing ideas from the end of WW1. Your thoughts on this?

[carl]

Stan:

I spent the last few hours on the internet looking things up, which I should have done in the first place.

The GBU-39 (small diameter bomb) has 50 pounds of explosive in it. The FAB-100 is supposed to have about 85 pounds of explosive so the GBU-39 should be better suited for close in use. From what I have read it was designed not to be "too much bomb" so to speak. It is guided and has a CEP of 5-8 meters, which can be brought down to 3 meters for a surveyed target (I don't know what a "surveyed target" is). The reason I am suggesting this weapon is that from reading various posts people seem to like JDAM's, and this would be a way of giving the Army direct control of a weapon like that as inexpensively as I can think of.

AC type aircraft are great but the current iterations are very complicated systems and they ain't cheap. They also can't fly in the daylight. From what I could gather they fly around 8-10,000 feet, are very easy to see and so are very vulnerable. I am figuring it would be safe enough for an airplane with half the visual density flying at 15,000 feet to operate in the daytime.

The Transall is still a pretty big airplane, but it is out of production and it would still be quite expensive to fit it out like an AC-130.

Slapout:

I didn't know the Army dropped mortar shells from helos in VN. I'll have to look that up.

MetalStorm is quite impressive but wouldn't the first few rounds out of a pistol type one have very different ballistics than the last few?

[slapout9]

Hi carl, I don't know enough about the Metal storm System to say if ballistics are effected. The main reason I posted it was for the Aircraft version which shoots the bullets straight down like you were talking about in your first posts.

If you can access anything about the development of the Air Cavalry you should be able to find pictures of early Hueys with the motor dropping capability early 1960's versions.

UH-1M link with info about MAD-Mortar Ariel Delivery system. No Pics just info.
http://www.faqs.org/docs/air/avhuey.html

[Stan]

Hey Carl !

Stan:

I spent the last few hours on the internet looking things up, which I should have done in the first place.

Sorry, pal. Next time I'll send you some jpegs (I have them at the office on the intranet)

The GBU-39 (small diameter bomb) has 50 pounds of explosive in it. The FAB-100 is supposed to have about 85 pounds of explosive so the GBU-39 should be better suited for close in use. From what I have read it was designed not to be "too much bomb" so to speak. It is guided and has a CEP of 5-8 meters, which can be brought down to 3 meters for a surveyed target (I don't know what a "surveyed target" is). The reason I am suggesting this weapon is that from reading various posts people seem to like JDAM's, and this would be a way of giving the Army direct control of a weapon like that as inexpensively as I can think of.

I won't go too deep into the FAB-100, but suffices to say her wall thickness is more than 3 inches of scored steel (fragmentation). Our minimum safe distance for 2.0 kilos of explosives is 100 meters This presumes a low order detonation ??? So much for that idea. Surveyed target from above could be best described as 'line of sight'.

AC type aircraft are great but the current iterations are very complicated systems and they ain't cheap. They also can't fly in the daylight. From what I could gather they fly around 8-10,000 feet, are very easy to see and so are very vulnerable. I am figuring it would be safe enough for an airplane with half the visual density flying at 15,000 feet to operate in the daytime.

The Transall is still a pretty big airplane, but it is out of production and it would still be quite expensive to fit it out like an AC-130.

I knew they weren't cheap, but they can't fly or operate in daylight ? What happened in Somalia recently ? I naively assumed that all her on-board gizmos and crewmen were intended to work under any conditions.

Slapout:

I didn't know the Army dropped mortar shells from helos in VN. I'll have to look that up.

MetalStorm is quite impressive but wouldn't the first few rounds out of a pistol type one have very different ballistics than the last few?

Yep, we've even acquired GPS-guided mortars...one thing though, don't point the tube downwards

[carl]

Stan:

I am not familiar with what happened in Somalia, but from all I've read the Air Force won't let the AC-130's operate in the day. They could, but are judged to be too vulnerable to be worth risking. We only have a very few of these airplanes.

Maybe an AC-130 guy could comment. My saying "I've read that..." doesn't really cut it.

I think a GPS guided 120 mm mortar shell dropped, rather than fired, from an airplane 3 miles up would be kind of cool.

[FLZOOMIE]

[QUOTE=carl;32437]Stan:

I am not familiar with what happened in Somalia, but from all I've read the Air Force won't let the AC-130's operate in the day. They could, but are judged to be too vulnerable to be worth risking. We only have a very few of these airplanes.

Maybe an AC-130 guy could comment. My saying "I've read that..." doesn't really cut it.


Hello all,

I'm a former AC-130 pilot and the author of "Gunships Unleashed" which you discussed previously in this blog. I just joined the website so please be patient as I figure out the ROE's, technology, etc here. Anyway, AC-130's can and have operated in the daytime but the potential reward must warrant the potential risk. It is in no way black and white, as with most things, and I am unaware as to present ops and couldn't discuss here even if I was. A great article was written following the first major battle in Fallujah which specifically discussed the issue. Gunship-Daytime-Ops.doc
Hopefully I've attached it here. I'll try again if not and you can probably find it by googling "AC-130 daytime ops". Anyway, it's a controversial topic. If you've read my article, you'll see that I did not feel gunships were being used as effectively as possible in the time that they were operating. So, my goal was to help fix that before even considering the daytime ops question. In closing, I know there were some differing opinions as to my article so please send your thoughts my way.

[slapout9]

Welcome Zoomie, great to have a writer of an actual article of discussion here to explain their views.

[jcustis]

Welcome Zoomie, great to have a writer of an actual article of discussion here to explain their views.

Indeed...We appreciate you taking the time to come here and discuss this critical (at least to me and a few others) topic.

[Stan]

Welcome aboard, FLZoomie !

Hello all,

I'm a former AC-130 pilot and the author of "Gunships Unleashed" which you discussed previously in this blog. I just joined the website so please be patient as I figure out the ROE's, technology, etc here. Anyway, AC-130's can and have operated in the daytime but the potential reward must warrant the potential risk. It is in no way black and white, as with most things, and I am unaware as to present ops and couldn't discuss here even if I was. A great article was written following the first major battle in Fallujah which specifically discussed the issue.
Hopefully I've attached it here. I'll try again if not and you can probably find it by googling "AC-130 daytime ops". Anyway, it's a controversial topic. If you've read my article, you'll see that I did not feel gunships were being used as effectively as possible in the time that they were operating. So, my goal was to help fix that before even considering the daytime ops question. In closing, I know there were some differing opinions as to my article so please send your thoughts my way.

The Somalia story was reportedly a daylight operation. Granted, it doesn't appear that the targets were assessed as a potential risk to the gunship. Most of my experience with 130 drivers was in Sub-Sahara with the 7th SOS. My observations then are echoed in the attachment you sent.

Air and ground officers alike tend to blame commanders, rather than AC-130 pilots or crews, for the decision to withhold these assets during the daytime fight in Fallujah. Some AC-130 pilots agree the threat from MANPADs in Iraq is fairly low, given the altitudes at which the gunships typically fly, officials say.
“It’s not the captains and the majors flying these missions. They’re the bravest of the brave,” says retired Army Col. David Hunt, a former Green Beret and airborne Ranger. “The generals are making a statement: ‘We’ll tell you how best to use our airplanes.’”

I look forward to more of your posts.
As time permits you, please take a few minutes here and introduce yourself.

Regards, Stan

[luckyroll]

Hi, new here. Just reading this post and thought I'd make an opinionated reply to some of what you guys had to say. I probablt don't have the knowledge you guys have, but, I might be able to make a point.
It seems alot of people are basing alot of what was said off of what the Military does. The guy that trained me tought me "outside the box" thinking. It also seems that the Military gets it wrong as much as they do right.
Your usually better running a set-up that you feel confident in and in a perfectly good aircraft you feel confident flying. Heck, you could take an old DC-3 and dodge SAMs all day long and arm it to the nines with small arms... It'll get the job done if you feel good about it. But, on the other hand, you'd better have some rotor for back up against heavy jet power and a damn good rotor wing pilot. I would feel most confident in a light, fast piston fighter like a Sea Fury MK11, seeing as how it can go low and slow and can out manuver jet power. Now, I'm basing this off of the fact that no one has all the rice in China or tea in England to be spending on equipment. Another thing that might be considered about the Tucanis and AT-6 Hawkwer is that they both have really good acrobatic capabilities against jets with the right pilot. A small consideration untill your getting pounced on by a jet.

[luckyroll]

I was reading some of what you guys were talking about with regards to the OH-6 series of rotorwing craft. I thought I might tell you what I know about it. I'm not sure if this is 100% correct, but, its just of my understanding.
The OH-6 system is still in use by the Army and I think the Marines today. Hughes did jack up the cost, but, the Army threatened to cancel contract and halted for a few months untill Hughes sold the contract and plans to MD Rotor, a division of McDonnell Douglas. The modern Army version is called the MD-530eg/Defender 2. The new Defender-530 boasts 650 SHP over the older OH-6's 450 and a few other modern advances. The Marine Corps is said to be using the MD-530an, that has the new NOTAR tail rotor system. It actually doesn't have a tail rotor, but, more a harmonic balancer like on a car engine with a fan on the end(to put it in laymans terms, my idiocy knows no bounds). The Corps had plans on running it in conjunction with the UH-1y Venom 2, with the Quick Fix sigthing system, kinda like the old Army Pink Teams, but I guess plans have changed to coupling it with the new Cobra's, whenever that may be...
It has been said that the Defender 2 is the fastest, most long range capable rotor craft in the Militaries modern arsenal with the exemption of any X- craft. This is just what I understand and please feel free to correct me. After all, I am mostly on this forum to learn from you guys.

[William F. Owen]

This is just what I understand and please feel free to correct me. After all, I am mostly on this forum to learn from you guys.

While not wishing to neccessarily correct you, this might help.

Personally, I think NOTAR is a box of frogs. It's got poor authority compared to a proper tail rotor, and it weather cocks into into wind, when you are trying to hover cross-wind. - so for an armed platform it's not good!

[luckyroll]

No, I have to admit, when MD first put that NOTAR sys out there I thought and still think it a bit quirky. Not only that but, they have already made great improvements to the Defender 2's tail rotor and it seems to be perfect. Why give them an oversized RPG target? That NOTAR tail can't swing as quickly as the standard tail can and I thought that to be some of it's great attributes... The fact that it's tail was so small and moved so quick(intern causing the entaire craft to be able to manuever quickly).
Anyway... I agree. Why fix what aint broke?.. Gues its good for commercial market, if you want to land in a residential area without the worry of banging it up on a nicely manacured oak tree.

[Bob's World]

Just to help nudge people toward greater clarity: You are discussing "FID" aircraft, not COIN aircraft (COIN is something one does in their own country with their own populace).

Or in the current lingo, "IW" aircraft. AFSOC is working closely with the "big blue" to help them develop a capability and capacity to support these types of operations in order to avoid the otherwise inevitable alternative: If only AFSOC develops the capacity to support these types of missions the Air Force will think of IW as being synonomous with SOF. It isn't.

Basically it just looking around and seeing what we really need for the world we live in today, and buying that. Fortunately what we really need today is a lot cheaper than what the fighter jock community has been pushing for.

[William F. Owen]

Just to help nudge people toward greater clarity: You are discussing "FID" aircraft, not COIN aircraft (COIN is something one does in their own country with their own populace).

Or in the current lingo, "IW" aircraft. AFSOC is working closely with the "big blue" to help them develop a capability and capacity to support these types of operations in order to avoid the otherwise inevitable alternative: If only AFSOC develops the capacity to support these types of missions the Air Force will think of IW as being synonomous with SOF. It isn't.

Basically it just looking around and seeing what we really need for the world we live in today, and buying that. Fortunately what we really need today is a lot cheaper than what the fighter jock community has been pushing for.

Good points. Personally I can't see the point in having airframes that are unique to COIN operations. Buying little turbo-props to shoot rockets is a pretty silly idea, if it's justified on their application in Counter-insurgency!

[reed11b]

Good points. Personally I can't see the point in having airframes that are unique to COIN operations. Buying little turbo-props to shoot rockets is a pretty silly idea, if it's justified on their application in Counter-insurgency!

Operational costs..ability to reduce colateral damage...better equiped to provide CAS, due to loiter time and situational awarness...ability to have forces that operate aircraft our allies are likely to be able to afford and can therefore teach there use???
Reed