Reply With QuoteBW,
What more do you think is needed for FID besides the UAV's, transports and other aircraft we have now?
Well, I'm not sure about the turbo-prop thing... I kind of wonder if those were a little too fancy for Blackwater, or, if they really needed something that expensive even. I try to think of all the SOF's out there(how small in force those guys are) that have the oldest of the old "junkers" or little "horse flies" that can do their job just fine. But, I guess you spend the money you have and get the best you can afford. And, those planes are good aircraft for the money. I would outfit and sub-con my 337 sky rocket out any day, its a good one and I trust it's capabilities.
By the way, I'm using SOF's only as a refference.
I always lean towards the "less means more" way of thinking and I do have to agree with Bob.
Last edited by luckyroll; 05-31-2009 at 01:16 PM.
BW,
What more do you think is needed for FID besides the UAV's, transports and other aircraft we have now?
Not saying you are wrong, or those are not good points, but you might as well adapt an airframe you already have, rather than dive head long into purchasing a new one.Originally Posted by reed11b
Got Apaches, use Apaches. Too expensive? - OK so how do I do the same thing cheaper and not make my Apache a "big war only Toy".
Can you adapt a training aircraft, you already have?
What's the cheapest to run aircraft in the inventory?
Will procuring a new airframe save more money that adapting something in service which has higher running costs?
etc etc etc....
Infinity Journal "I don't care if this works in practice. I want to see it work in theory!"
- The job of the British Army out here is to kill or capture Communist Terrorists in Malaya.
- If we can double the ratio of kills per contact, we will soon put an end to the shooting in Malaya.
Sir Gerald Templer, foreword to the "Conduct of Anti-Terrorist Operations in Malaya," 1958 Edition
Well, since we are on the same page, I think... Lets look at the 0-2 skymaster and NOT using it because it isn't in inventory. Even though they are extremely cheap, other militaries still use them because of cost, effectiveness, ruggedness, reliability, list goes on and on. They are not in inventory ( maybe re-adoption should be in play). We will go with the next best, or, best thing yet... AU-24 Super Stallion. The new ones are fast, have a few already, can land in a variety, if not any environment, easy to learn to fly(have been used as trainers, tough and cheap. Adaptable to every small arms system including, but not limited to TOW, HYDRA and GAU-4/M-195-7. Do you think? I think so! 40 years and the orders keep rolling in. That has to say something about any perfectly good aircraft, right? I personally love'em! Am I completely wrong?
Then, lets run it in cunjunction with the new AT-6 Hawker that are in inventory(Well t-6 2's, but they can convert to AT-6 COINs). Maybe I'm not thinking correctly, but, I still think it makes sense. And, I don't think we are going to be outfitting U-21's with wepons systems(although maybe not a horrible idea).
Last edited by luckyroll; 06-01-2009 at 01:46 PM.
Really? I know a few Covey pilots from way back and not a well liked aeroplane. Underpowered, overloaded and can't do much well. Plus silly little reciprocating petrol engine!
Turbo Couriers are good. Good passenger/cargo payload and pretty multi-role. Good aircraft for a small air force.AU-24 Super Stallion. The new ones are fast, have a few already, can land in a variety, if not any environment, easy to learn to fly(have been used as trainers, tough and cheap.
....but we still come back to this "rolling hot, call FAC in sight" Bush War fantasy plane image, which is not really realistic.
The US Forces do not operate forward bases. They operate huge bases, so all the FOB-STOL stuff is a waste of effort. The Army is focussed on rotary wing, so I can't see why they would welcome fixed wing back.
If you want support airframes, use King Air B200's and if you want weapons use A-10s and AH-64s - seems the US Forces pretty much have what they need.
Infinity Journal "I don't care if this works in practice. I want to see it work in theory!"
- The job of the British Army out here is to kill or capture Communist Terrorists in Malaya.
- If we can double the ratio of kills per contact, we will soon put an end to the shooting in Malaya.
Sir Gerald Templer, foreword to the "Conduct of Anti-Terrorist Operations in Malaya," 1958 Edition
Well, I was reffering to 0-2s in the sense that we would be converting. My 337 is a Super Skyrocket and there are other uptdated military type conversions such as the Super Lynx. Not a silly aircraft at all. The Originals had as much power as a VW Bug, but, other than that, they are a joy to fly in terms of manuverability and tough take offs/short landings and tough as nails. I was also assuming we are using the cheapest meens possible.
Look, I'm just tossing thoughts at this point for both sides of the argument. No heated debates from me.
I may be completely wrong in saying this, but, it's the minimalist that I am...
Combat is a level playing field because we are all carrying guns. The only disadvantage is to the person who doesn't know, doesn't seek out, and doesn't know how to use every advantage they have in war. How many times do modern militaries have to be beaten by primitiveness before they learn?
Use the utmost basics first, then use technology as need apply or a fail-safe.
I guess if everything worked well, or, even at all, we wouldn't have anything left to discuss. It seems like everything that has to do with combat is based on an opinion. Usually from an over-zelouse mouth like my own.
Last edited by luckyroll; 06-01-2009 at 03:39 PM.
O-2s have a slight issue...
AVGAS. No longer a commodity in the US logistics inventory. If one were to go the route of adapting an exisitng airframe then the AU-23A Peacemaker would be a good choioce. Basically it's the armed version of the Pilatus PC-6/C Turbo-Porter. Stall speed is 52kts with the laundry hung out!
And it uses JP.
"What is best in life?" "To crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentation of the women."
Thus my point about reciprocating engines.AVGAS. No longer a commodity in the US logistics inventory. If one were to go the route of adapting an exisitng airframe then the AU-23A Peacemaker would be a good choioce. Basically it's the armed version of the Pilatus PC-6/C Turbo-Porter. Stall speed is 52kts with the laundry hung out!
And it uses JP.
The AU-23(B/C) would make a good choice.
It can be used as a gun ship, with 12.7mm gatling and combined with modern RCWS and FCS, that would be potent, in a low threat air defence environment. There is enough room in the back for some good sensor and comms packages, and you can parachute and air drop from them.
...but, the US don't do STOL anymore so no advantage to a STOL Airframe.
PC-6 is SLOW... so time to OA, time back and time to go A-B is an issue, and it can't keep up with a CH-47 or 53 - they are faster!
So bearing that in mind, if STOL is not required it does nothing better, than a B200 - which the USA has in service, and let's be honest budget is not really an issue for the US. The supposed savings of a low performance fleet will be negligible as a percentage of that used in theatre.
The IDF has junked all it's STOL AC. I can show you piles of DO-27/28's and ARAVAs - breaks my hearts, as someone who enjoys flying, but they have a very number of B200s.
I love little dirty Bush War AC, but warfare evolves and they are less and less relevant given modern technology, weapons and sensors.
Infinity Journal "I don't care if this works in practice. I want to see it work in theory!"
- The job of the British Army out here is to kill or capture Communist Terrorists in Malaya.
- If we can double the ratio of kills per contact, we will soon put an end to the shooting in Malaya.
Sir Gerald Templer, foreword to the "Conduct of Anti-Terrorist Operations in Malaya," 1958 Edition
I was working w/ a guy for awhile that was working on a project that was essentially a scaled down version of these utility aircraft in UAV form, with a strong emphsis on range and loiter over STOL. Simalier benifits and some good cost savings, I'll see if he will let me release some of the materials I have.
Reed
OK, back to Blackwater....
Now back to the Blackwater thing. All of the Aircraft we have listed would have of better cost to quality ratio. Right? Atleast for what they need in thier so called support ( COIN ops). Why would a company with that many problems want to get involved in COIN operations anyway? OK.... I won't go there 'cause I like Blackwater and when your on top I guess everyone tries to knock you down. Not to mention the "other types of militaries" that mess up as well, we can only be fair and not criticize.
Anyway, I think that for support our forementioned aircraft would be fine for what they need and cost savings. They already have numerouse rotorcraft and there are alot of professional soldiers that have been in small, poorer countries and have established themselves with those governments. Sure there planes might be old birds, but they are established. I'm just curiouse.
Really I'm wondering why they would want a larger SOF company and how all this works. It seems the days of the small time SOFer are coming to an end. Are the days of the AVG gone?
Last edited by luckyroll; 06-02-2009 at 02:23 PM.
You rang???
Passenger/freight carrier, ISR platform and fire support, all in one dependable, loiter time rich and cheap airframe.
And currently in use in parts of the long war by the good guys....
I would not want to take any DC-3 variant into a place where there might be manpads lurking, not unless it had a missile warning system and flare package equal to or better than that carried by C-17s. A 3 couldn't dodge a bottle rocket. Nothing much short of a fighter can dodge manpads anyway.
Don't use a B200, A200 or any King Air for anything that requires the crew to look outside. You cruise along serenely in those things untroubled by the sight of the ground. The wings and engine nacelles you can see pretty good.
Dreaming about what airplane we should get is always great fun even if nothing at all will change. No matter what platform was purchased the powers that be would ruin it millions of dollars worth of electronic systems. Nothing really exists unless it can be seen on the video screen in the TOC after all.
Still there must be a better way of supporting infantry patrols than using a B-1 based in Diego Garcia and the tankers that go with it.
"We fight, get beat, rise, and fight again." Gen. Nathanael Greene
DC-3's Rock!
Spent an early part of a career long time passed on the Marine Corps' C-117D (previously designated R4D-8) which was in essence an upgraded C-47. We were self annointed the Short Haul Inter-island Transport Squadron. Even flew that crusty curmudgeon Dale Dye around theater when he was a CWO.
"What is best in life?" "To crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentation of the women."
DC-3s also have a very light wing loading, which gives them really decent STOL characteristics, but make for a very bumpy ride in turbulence.
To me, it satisfy the real multirole mode and economy of a true COIN aircraft.
I used to watch a turbo-3 take off from Kisangani and it didn't look very STOL to me. The captain seemed reluctant to take it into a place the Caravan could go. But you'd have to look at the book figures to really know.
Besides, where are you going to get tailwheel pilots to fly the thing? Say, 120mm, don't you fly Super-Cubs?
If you want to use aircraft about that size, ATR-42s or Dash-8s would be a much better bet. They are considerable faster, fly higher and an ATR at least can land really short. I don't know much about the airfield performance of Dash-8s but I do know Dash-8 100s are cheap. You can part the thing out for more than it cost to buy a flyable airplane; or at least you could 4 years ago.
"We fight, get beat, rise, and fight again." Gen. Nathanael Greene
Last edited by William F. Owen; 06-04-2009 at 03:50 AM. Reason: addition
Infinity Journal "I don't care if this works in practice. I want to see it work in theory!"
- The job of the British Army out here is to kill or capture Communist Terrorists in Malaya.
- If we can double the ratio of kills per contact, we will soon put an end to the shooting in Malaya.
Sir Gerald Templer, foreword to the "Conduct of Anti-Terrorist Operations in Malaya," 1958 Edition
I don't know about it all. The gentleman that tought me to fly in the civilian sector flew RU-21h's along time ago. He said anything that went low and slow made it easy to dodge SAMs. He told me something about a trick to pick them up using a Cobra hand held, (can't remember the details). You just turn up the volume real loud on it and pay attention to any little change in squelch static. Not sure exactly how it works. Other than that keep a close eye. He said he watched many a telephone pole fly past his canopy. He mentioned that at that time the louder planes like A-1s couldn't use it because of the load motors. Of course this was all 40 years ago and I'm sure some things change.
I don't know alot about this stuff. I don't think there is any elimination of risk no matter the equipment. I was infantry and did not learn to fly untill recently. So far it seems like a gritty job and lots of fun. I'd like to get into "the buisiness" someday, but my flying skills and knowledge are lacking. For now I'm soaking it all up and trying to figure out a way to practice combat flying.
I know we have been talking about what everyone should be using and doing. But, I wonder alot more every day about things getting worse just south of my local and the role antiquated COIN aircraft and COIN for hire might play in the not so distant future. It worries me... Makes my teeth itch thinking about it, but at the same time something that pushes me for knowledge about what I need, or, may be needed to do if in an event that this type of work should pop up. So, this is all knowlege for that and anything else that I might fall into.
Last edited by luckyroll; 06-04-2009 at 02:09 PM.
A bit too late to suggest different airframes: The US Department of State is currently using DC-3s as COIN aircraft in Afghanistan, as we speak.
I "get" that there may be some more optimal airframes out there, but the old Gooney bird is getting the job done, regardless of theory. I just rode in one three weeks ago.
The unitasker does not an ideal COIN aircraft make. The idea being that the air situation requires flexibility, not optimization of platforms. And the DC-3 is STOL "enough" and is a good enough ISR platform, and is a good enough fire support platform. And it's relatively cheap to operate. And evidently some were available and affordable.
You could apply these requirements for just about any fixed wing aircraft with "good enough" characteristics.
The problem comes when you get a wonk who insists on "idealizing" the airframe for a certain task. Or becoming risk averse.
120 thats too cool. So, I wasn't too far off base I guess in saying what I said. It seems no matter what you might think is going on in the military today with thier equipment, things you think had passed seem to pop up as ressurected. Why, because they work!!
For example, just found out that Boeing is re-vamping the OV-10 to a new STOL, COIN platform for the Corps called the au-110 Lightning 2. Same plane, more (bigger) guns, more ammo, better sights and alot faster... and slower. The original 1,040 SHP's will be replaced with the more compact, lighter, P&W pt6a-68 1,250 SHP engines.
Well that's been a long time coming. There was lots of talk about this when I was Project managing some stuff for the Philipinnes Air Force and what could be done replace/enhance their OV-10s.
Calling the OV-10 "COIN" aircraft is selling it short. It was FAC/MEDEVAC/Transport/CAS true multi-role air frame. Today it's a good choice for small Air Forces, and more useful than the Super Tucanos for example. The AH-6 is going back into production for the same reason.
Infinity Journal "I don't care if this works in practice. I want to see it work in theory!"
- The job of the British Army out here is to kill or capture Communist Terrorists in Malaya.
- If we can double the ratio of kills per contact, we will soon put an end to the shooting in Malaya.
Sir Gerald Templer, foreword to the "Conduct of Anti-Terrorist Operations in Malaya," 1958 Edition
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks