SMALL WARS COUNCIL
Go Back   Small Wars Council > Military Art & Science Applied > Catch-All, Military Art & Science

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 04-10-2007   #41
Culpeper
Council Member
 
Culpeper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Roswell, USA
Posts: 540
Default

Even though this article is geared toward Marine CAS for the most part I do have a little practical experience in this field. Except back in my day it was an Air Force fighter pilot on the ground, with someone like me as his assistant using such tools as a stop watch and a map to direct in a CAS mission. Nevertheless, the Air Force field, TACP, gets little attention in this area. Today, Air Force ETACs are trained to take the place of the grounded fighter pilot. These guys have done a hell of job. During my tenure we were known as ROMADs. They have come a long way and now can be found at every level of the Army, including Special Forces. The FEBA has changed since the end of the Cold War. These Air Force guys are, in effect, virtually calling in CAS for their own preservation as well as for the individual Army personnel they are supporting. It has gotten that close. Just thought I would shine a little light on the Air Force/Army CAS role.

http://www.romad.com/description.htm

Last edited by Culpeper; 04-10-2007 at 05:44 AM. Reason: update url
Culpeper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-11-2007   #42
jcustis
Council Member
 
jcustis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: SOCAL
Posts: 2,144
Default

When I attended the 2003 Emerald Express session in Quantico, there was a very intelligent ETAC who briefed the attendees on his role in supporting CAS. The JTAC program is up and running, but as with all things air-centric, it takes a lot of support to accomplish the training and it is tough to funnel sufficient numbers through.

I'd love to have all of the NCOs around me JTAC qual'd.
jcustis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-16-2007   #43
120mm
Council Member
 
120mm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Wonderland
Posts: 1,284
Default

Sorry for taking so long to respond, as I was in Slovakia. This article describes why the USMC should be The Model for Air Force/Army cooperation. As a CAV guy, we really appreciated knowing and working with our "air half". I was in two different units that initially treated the air and ground half of the squadron as separate entities and transitioned into working as a team. The "mutual contempt" issue melted away rather quickly.

The problem I have with our current Air Force brothers, is that their paradigm does not mesh with our paradigm and imho does not contribute to, and probably works against our current COIN model.
120mm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-17-2007   #44
Culpeper
Council Member
 
Culpeper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Roswell, USA
Posts: 540
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 120mm View Post
Sorry for taking so long to respond, as I was in Slovakia. This article describes why the USMC should be The Model for Air Force/Army cooperation. As a CAV guy, we really appreciated knowing and working with our "air half". I was in two different units that initially treated the air and ground half of the squadron as separate entities and transitioned into working as a team. The "mutual contempt" issue melted away rather quickly.

The problem I have with our current Air Force brothers, is that their paradigm does not mesh with our paradigm and imho does not contribute to, and probably works against our current COIN model.
I'm sorry to hear that the company language between the Navy/Marine and Air Force/Army hasn't jointly improved as much as I would like to see with CAS. When I was in the Air Force there was no such thing as directing a CAS mission with Navy or Marine pilots and we never trained with Marine FACs. Even if we did I doubt we would have understood each others' lingo. USMC practically wrote the book on CAS and it wouldn't be a bad idea if the Air Force and Army would humble themselves a little more in that direction. Nevertheless, CAS is never an easy mission no matter if the FAC is on the ground, in the air, in the USMC, or the USAF.
Culpeper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-08-2007   #45
Jesse9252
Council Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Okinawa, Japan
Posts: 33
Default COIN Aircraft for Iraq

I thought this thread was worth resurrecting with this Defense Tech post about the Iraqi Air Force's new COIN aircraft.

Quote:
The Iraqi air force in two years will be flying a new fleet of single-engine turboprops as counter-insurgency (COIN) aircraft. See the contract solicitation, posted by the US Air Force, here.

The requirement limits the potential bids to companies that have an aircraft that a) is already in wide use and b) is powered by the Pratt & Whitney Canada PT6 engine.

That narrows the bidders to four that Defense Tech can think of: the Embraer EMB-314 Super Tucano, the Hawker Beechcraft AT-6 Texan, the Korean Aerospace KO-1 Wong Bee and the Pilatus PC-9M.

Not to play favorites, but Defense Tech humbly suggests this means there are only two serious candidates: the AT-6 and EMB-314 -- with the AT-6 gaining a huge advantage from the "Made in America" sticker stamped on the program's marketing literature.

But don't count out the Brazilians with the Super Tucano. Expect the executives in Sao Jose Dos Campos to propose moving the EMB-314 assembly -- or opening a second production line -- to Florida, if they win the contract.

Keep your eye on this program. This could be the first of many such requirements for a dedicated counter-insurgency aircraft fleet to come down the line, both abroad and in the US.
Jesse9252 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-08-2007   #46
jcustis
Council Member
 
jcustis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: SOCAL
Posts: 2,144
Default

Quote:
Others disagree, saying the current aircraft don't meet COIN needs.
Johnson says, "What we need is something rugged, reliable, survivable and multi-dimensional."
While the Air Force has often directed its focus and funding on fighters and strike aircraft, COIN operations take on more indirect roles--intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance (ISR), transportation, air ambulance, psychological operations, communications and providing cover for convoys and other ground operations.
First off, I'm glad a new post hit this thread, b/c I had framed some pro/con arguments on a COIN aircraft but forgot to post them.

I think that with the proper airframe, avionics, and sensor/comm suite, a prop-driven COIN aircraft can be "all that and a bag of chips". Looking at the quote extracted above, it is critical to dig a little deeper and look at just what those indirect roles are, and how a manned platform can supplement (not supplant) UAVs.

As I look back to my favorite historical timeframe (Rhodesia 1965-1980), fixed-wing aircraft played critical roles in the COIN fight there. Granted, the majority of operations were kinetic in nature, but the aircraft were enablers that fit a requirement. Fast-forward to the present, and some of those requirements remain:

ISR - This could run the gamut of pre-strike/raid surveillance, LOC security, counter-fire support, etc. I been in the UAS sensor-to-shooter loop on several occasions, and it can be a painful proposition when the supporting UAV control cell does not have VHF comms to the shooter. In once case, I was coordinating the actions of a ground unit to attempt the capture of personnel previously observed launching rockets from within Fallujah proper. I was on a VHF line to the ground unit, and cardinal directions and distance to the Marines, but only after sifting through tac chat messages, screen captures emailed to the battle captain account, and a live conversation with a UAV cell coordinator several FOBs away. We only caught the bad guys because they went to ground and our guys walked right on top of them. A backseat flight officer could have worked the process directly with the ground unit, even if I had had to deal with a pressing issue like a troops-in-contact situation. That wouldn't have been possible with a UAV.

Psychological Ops - Indeed, the ability to execute PSYOP from a loitering platform would be bigger than we might imagine, but it goes much further than simply dropping leaflets. AC-130s came on station just about every night of Op Al Fajr, and while they were limited to night ops, they also provided fire support that denied portions of the night and battlespace to the enemy. It was also a significant morale boost to hear the low rumble of the engines overhead. Sometimes it's about intangibles.

Communications - Outfitted with the appropriate comm suite, a COIN aircraft could be a big plus in terms of radio relay, whether the crew are monitoring the "battle channel" or have the assets to simply relay the SINCGARs signal automatically. Altitude is the big plus there, and even in the Blue Force Tracker world, instantaneous voice comms are key to reducing friction and misunderstanding.

Support for ground ops - Post incident (e.g. complex ambush), a manned platform may be an asset equal to a UAV, if for no other reason than the fact that the Mk1 mod 1 eyeball remains in play. As another example, on the tail end of OIF, my company was punched out as the QRF to gain contact with a band of thugs terrorizing a town to the NW of Ad Diwaniyah. By the time we got to the town, the BGs had high-tailed it back to their canal-side village. Once we finally detained an old man pointed out by the kids as an Ali Baba (and determined to be the father of 2 of the punks), we reoriented to the east and closed on the village. A section of A-10s had been pushed to us because the original intel estimated the group to be 12-18 men strong, armed with RPGs and up to 82mm mortars. In the end, the A-10 drivers actually spotted a stolen government pickup fleeing away from the village as we approach. Through low-level dry runs and the judicious use of flares, the section fixed the vehicle and allowed us to close the gap and go hands on with all four bad guys. Outside of going kinetic with a hellfire, I don't think a UAV could have had any impact beyond tracking their flight.

Some Rhodesian Lynx (modified Cessna Skymaster 337) drivers were reportedly so good at reading the ground that they could identify the paths worn in the grass by villagers taking food to hiding terrs.

And in this day and age of fratricide and combat ID issues, what better way to identify that group of meandering pickups (let's say in an Afghan SOF scenario) than to hail them on the common "battle channel" or buzz them a bit and see the reaction it provokes?

I think that UAS are great, and they can provide a great degree of support, but it will always be within a niche role. A man in the loop remains a appealing solution to what could actually be simple problems.
jcustis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-08-2007   #47
Steve Blair
Moderator
 
Steve Blair's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Montana
Posts: 3,195
Default

Another good argument for keeping the "man in the loop" is the exploits of scout helicopter pilots and crewchiefs in Vietnam. The little birds played major roles in many incidents, and most likely prevented others. Doctrine varied from unit to unit in many cases, but the ability to go low and slow and actually LOOK at the trail or hut in question is without a doubt a vital element of the equation.
__________________
"On the plains and mountains of the American West, the United States Army had once learned everything there was to learn about hit-and-run tactics and guerrilla warfare."
T.R. Fehrenbach This Kind of War
Steve Blair is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-09-2007   #48
120mm
Council Member
 
120mm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Wonderland
Posts: 1,284
Default

Carl from Kinhasa and I had an interesting discussion via PM where we discussed the prevalence of TBD/TBF aircraft in Africa. One of the reason they were so common then, and are still being used in various roles, now, is that they made an outstanding COIN aircraft. They could shoot guns, drop bombs, observe troop movements, and you could stuff at least 8 people into the fuselage.

I see no reason why you couldn't develop something like that, using modern materials, that would serve as a COIN aircraft, at a relatively low price.

As an aside, I fought like hell in OIF I to preserve the many crated PT-6s we found at LSA Anaconda as well as other places. The Iraqis used them in their Twin Otters, and they had quite a few factory remans in stock. The Army wanted to bury them with a bulldozer. Hopefully, the requirement that the new COIN aircraft use the P&W PT-6 is the long-term results of my efforts and that "my" engines have survived in storage until now.
120mm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-09-2007   #49
jcustis
Council Member
 
jcustis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: SOCAL
Posts: 2,144
Default My COIN A/C capability wishlist

If I could have it my way, the following would be essential to any aircraft's capabilities.

- All-aspect FLIR camera with display
- All-aspect optical camera(s)
- Hard points for rockets, leaflet pods, and cannon pod(s). I think a cannon around 20mm in size could produce greater anti-material/personnel effects than a gun slinging 14.5mm or less. It comes at a price in weight and ammo capacity, but point detonating 20mm rounds can be very effective
- VHF retrans capability
- UHF capability
- Blue Force Tracker connectivity, with scaleability to incorporate the descendants of BFT
- A jump seat to allow a commander or OpsO to go aloft on that occasion when he needs to see the battlespace with the eyeball

EDITED TO ADD:
- A laser designator/range finder

After doing a little digging around, I found a design proposal to outfit a OV-10 Bronco with a recoilless rifle at one point in time. What a hoot that would have been to let off!

Last edited by jcustis; 05-10-2007 at 02:57 PM. Reason: added more "stuff"
jcustis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-09-2007   #50
steel rain
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 5
Default

Good List JCUSTIS: I didn't think of BFT. When I was last in country I used to lament how I could do a lot of good with just an old C-172 a pair of NODs and a SINCGARS. I'm a small plane pilot myself and I would love to fly the COIN mission. Funny they keep telling me I'm too old to fly in the military. Amazing they didn't seem to care about my age when I was dismounted outside the wire in body armor when it was 110 degrees And I get to do it again in a few months. Seriously, I hope big Military can see the need for a dedicated COIN aircraft. Apaches are nice but very expensive.
steel rain is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-09-2007   #51
jcustis
Council Member
 
jcustis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: SOCAL
Posts: 2,144
Default

Steelrain,

If you could ever get your hands on a copy of this book, you would likely enjoy it:

http://www.amazon.com/Britains-Rebel.../dp/1902304055

Britain's Rebel Air Force: The War from the Air in Rhodesia 1965-1980
jcustis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-10-2007   #52
120mm
Council Member
 
120mm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Wonderland
Posts: 1,284
Default

I NEED that book. I'll see if CARL has it.

Edited to say: CARL doesn't have the book, and neither does USAREUR libraries.

Here is a gratuitous 3 view of a REAL COIN aircraft:


Last edited by 120mm; 05-10-2007 at 07:38 AM.
120mm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-10-2007   #53
120mm
Council Member
 
120mm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Wonderland
Posts: 1,284
Default Development of the OV-10 and "Thinking outside the box"

Based on the COIN Aircraft thread, I've started up some medium-duty research, when I discovered a couple of nice papers on-line by the designer/builder of the most successful military aircraft ever built in a garage out of spare parts, the OV-10 Bronco.

See the link for more information, including a nifty little flying car project the inventor, K.P. Rice, COL(ret) USMC is working on right now.

http://www.volanteaircraft.com/ov-10.htm

The OV-10 Story: Innovation vs. The "System"

W.H.BECKETT ୆ K.P.RICE ୆ M.E.KING

Background

At the end of WWII the era of boom and zoom had arrived for military aviation with mushroom clouds, jet speeds and an independent Air Force. Korea soon showed the continuing necessity for ground troops and old fashioned Close Air Support (CAS), but the Army was impotent against the Air Force's preoccupation with jets, and in the late '50's hadn't developed it's rotary-wing substitute. Naval Aviation was competing with the new Air Force for nuclear roles in order to maintain its very existence. The Marines still advertised CAS, but were following the Air Force lead and justified the transition to jets on the basis of speed, bomb load and nukes (eg: "One A-4 equaled three Corsairs on the basis of 'productivity'").

Here is a link to the original paper about the development of the OV-10 from 1960.

http://www.volanteaircraft.com/l2vma.htm


THE NEED, CONCEPT OF OPERATION AND GENERAL SPECIFICATIONS FOR A VERY LIGHT S.T.O.L. SUPPORT AIRCRAFT 1960

MAJ W.H. BECKETT, MAG-15
MAJ K.P. RICE, AIRFMFPAC

PREFACE

Sixteen years ago the aircraft industry hit the "con trails." The atom was smashed, the sound barrier broken. The era of boom and zoom was launched in the middle of the mushroom clouds. The man in the Buck Rogers suit became the new hero of the new age. Thermonuclear annihilation "push button" style was as real a possibility as the miracle of the dial selector washing machine. But when the dark rain of fallout fell on an awestruck world, both sides of the international political question had grim second thoughts about resolving their differences by leaving a vacant spot in the solar system. The possibility of such a war remains with us. It must assuredly be prepared for!

Meanwhile, back in the foxholes of Korea, the jungles of Indo-China and the sands of Israel and Jordan, war proceeds pretty much as usual. Not the blast of the atom bomb, but the burst of machine gun fire breaks the silence of this "twilight peace" we are enjoying. The rifleman is no anachronism. He is very much with us and in active service. Read the daily newspaper.

The aviation complex, industrial and military, in its rightful pride and zeal, in being the instrument of the future and the vanguard for conquering space, has neglected the exigencies of current warfare and providing the requisite airborne support for same.
120mm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-10-2007   #54
Steve Blair
Moderator
 
Steve Blair's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Montana
Posts: 3,195
Default

One of the most interesting things about the OV-10 is the way it was used by the AF and the USMC. While the AF wanted to restrict it to a total FAC role, the USMC pushed the plane to its limits operationally (as did the Navy) and got very good operational value out of it.
__________________
"On the plains and mountains of the American West, the United States Army had once learned everything there was to learn about hit-and-run tactics and guerrilla warfare."
T.R. Fehrenbach This Kind of War
Steve Blair is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-10-2007   #55
Tom Odom
Council Member
 
Tom Odom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: DeRidder LA
Posts: 3,949
Default Neat Aircraft

I remember reading about the OV-10 in Popular Mechanics as a kid. Fascinating story then and now. The USAF always seemed to punish aviators who would go this route as lesser beings (that is of course a purely impressionistic view but one based on having friends inside the blue machine who fly lesser aircraft).

Thanks, Steve!

Tom
Tom Odom is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-10-2007   #56
jcustis
Council Member
 
jcustis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: SOCAL
Posts: 2,144
Default

I can't remember when they went out of service with the Marine Corps, but I can remember seeing several of them buzzing around New River Air Station in 1992.

It would be interesting to find out what the justification was for the platform's retirement.
jcustis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-10-2007   #57
Steve Blair
Moderator
 
Steve Blair's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Montana
Posts: 3,195
Default

According to globalsecurity.org they were phased out of the USMC inventory in 1995. No real indication there as to why, although it's possible the age of the airframe played a role.
__________________
"On the plains and mountains of the American West, the United States Army had once learned everything there was to learn about hit-and-run tactics and guerrilla warfare."
T.R. Fehrenbach This Kind of War
Steve Blair is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-10-2007   #58
jcustis
Council Member
 
jcustis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: SOCAL
Posts: 2,144
Default

Interesting...I've also done a bit more digging, and it seems some Bronco aficianado claims that cutting them allowed the Corps to put more money into fast-movers.

As for the airframe age, the Philippines of all places still has some in the inventory.

I suppose that those who advocate a COIN fixed-wing platform stand to tip over UAS ricebowls. It'll probably come down to a simple matter of not enough funding to justify the acquisition.

Last edited by jcustis; 05-10-2007 at 05:15 PM.
jcustis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-10-2007   #59
jcustis
Council Member
 
jcustis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: SOCAL
Posts: 2,144
Default

Quote:
The Rand Corp. recently completed an unclassified report, "COIN Aircraft Systems for the USAF and Friendly States Facing Insurgencies,"
Anyone know where this might be located? I ran a couple of google strings on it, but came up with nothing.
jcustis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-10-2007   #60
Blackfoot6
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: FL
Posts: 3
Default Looking Forward

The OV-10 thread is great, but, ultimately we want something with a similar airspeed that is stealthy, can provide ISR, kill a target, and act as an airborne FAC as necessary. That sort of multi-tasking would require a manned platform as well as facilitate airspace de-confliction better than more UAS's.
Blackfoot6 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Tags
aden, afghanistan, air power, counterinsurgency, dhofar, greece, history, insurgency, nicaragua, oman, yemen

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Counter-insurgency aircraft plans gain momentum in Defense Dept. 120mm Catch-All, Military Art & Science 178 08-30-2012 10:02 PM
Teach Your Organization the Basics of Counterinsurgency: COIN OPD/NCOPD Instruction Cavguy Training & Education 0 04-21-2009 04:00 PM
COIN & The Media (catch all) Jedburgh Media, Information & Cyber Warriors 79 02-28-2009 11:55 AM


All times are GMT. The time now is 03:55 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9. ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Registered Users are solely responsible for their messages.
Operated by, and site design 2005-2009, Small Wars Foundation