Page 4 of 20 FirstFirst ... 2345614 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 80 of 400

Thread: Aviation in COIN (merged thread)

  1. #61
    Moderator Steve Blair's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Montana
    Posts
    3,195

    Default

    Stealth is not an absolute, IMO. It's a "nice to have," but if forced to choose I'd skip it before I'd skip any other function. Adding stealth tacks years and dollars onto any program, and the returns tend to be somewhat theoretical. If you're talking muffled engines and acoustic stealth, that's a slightly different matter for COIN. But radar stealth is a bit of gold plate that could delay or kill a program that is needed.
    "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

  2. #62
    Council Member Tom Odom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    DeRidder LA
    Posts
    3,949

    Default

    Agreed Steve on stealth but agree also Blackfoot on manned platform versus UAS for COIN. By that I am referring to true COIN not select strike ops via Predator or manned platform. I guess I am too stuck in my ways but for COIN and CAS I want a manned platform with a brain and a soul on board.

    Best

    Tom

  3. #63
    Moderator Steve Blair's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Montana
    Posts
    3,195

    Default

    Agree completely on manned platform, Tom. You lose too much capability (and by that I mean all-around capability) by taking the pilot and nav/crewchief/door gunner/what-have-you out 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

  4. #64
    Council Member carl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Denver on occasion
    Posts
    2,460

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Blackfoot6 View Post
    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.
    Except for the stealth part, an A-1 Skyraider airframe with a big modern turboprop engine would provide everything required; great endurance, very large payload, many many weapons stations, 4 20 mm. cannon and a capacious fuselage with room for whatever you want to put in there.

    All for naught though, after the A-10's are gone, the Air Force will make sure there will be no more fixed wing CAS airplanes. The ground soldiers will have to make do with other things.

  5. #65
    Council Member 120mm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Wonderland
    Posts
    1,284

    Default

    carl,

    I want something small enough to land on the road next to my CP, so the AD1 is a bit much. But agreed on the uselessness of stealth in a COIN environment.

    OV-10s can and have carried small groups of people in internal stores. The basic assumptions of fixed-wing, light, use of infantry munitions and radios are good assumptions. As electronics keep getting smaller, lighter and cheaper, the avionics suite can be quite sophisticated within the initial OV-10 concept, prior to the Air Force attempting to kill it.

  6. #66
    Council Member Tom Odom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    DeRidder LA
    Posts
    3,949

    Default

    I would say also in this discussion--and I am equally guilty of not doing this--is that we need to distinguish between pure CAS aircraft and COIN aircraft. The two are not really the same--as 120mm indicates above and as Carl reminds us of the most excellent AD. The COIN bird like the OV10 has to do the FAC role--and the CAS on call with perhaps a limited lift capacity in a STOL airframe. The classic CAS bird like the AD, the A10, or even the A26/B26 (depending on variant and time frame) puts steel on target.

    Tom

  7. #67
    Council Member Tom Odom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    DeRidder LA
    Posts
    3,949

    Default OV-10 Forestry Service?

    Funny just watching the news about the fires on Catalina Island off California and there was an OV-10 doing its thing.

    Tom

  8. #68
    Council Member TROUFION's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    212

    Default OV-10 capability

    An interesting thing about the OV-10 on the Marine side is that the 2nd seat was reserved for a ground MOS officer. I served with a Company Commander who had done an air-tour as an OV-10 observer. Similiar to having a FAC on the ground, same argument for putting a grunt in the air on a slow moving platform. There is no electronic replacement for context and experience. This company commander was one of the last to fly in OV-10's his assumption for the phase out was battlefield survivability, but then in the early 90's we only looked at former Soviet style enemies.

    -T

  9. #69
    Council Member jcustis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    SOCAL
    Posts
    2,152

    Default

    Excellent point on the ground MOS observer. For the unfamiliar, when the Rhodesians (yes, I'm bringing them up again) got hot and heavy into their Fire Force employment techniques, the overall contact commander remained aloft in an Allouette armed with a 20mm cannon or quad .303s. He in turn directed the ballet on the ground.

  10. #70
    Council Member slapout9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    4,818

    Default

    jcustis,keep bringing them up they were a fantastic unit!

  11. #71
    Council Member 120mm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Wonderland
    Posts
    1,284

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jcustis View Post
    Excellent point on the ground MOS observer. For the unfamiliar, when the Rhodesians (yes, I'm bringing them up again) got hot and heavy into their Fire Force employment techniques, the overall contact commander remained aloft in an Allouette armed with a 20mm cannon or quad .303s. He in turn directed the ballet on the ground.
    And I can't find the book anywhere. You ARE a sadistic tease, you know that?

  12. #72
    Council Member 120mm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Wonderland
    Posts
    1,284

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tom Odom View Post
    Funny just watching the news about the fires on Catalina Island off California and there was an OV-10 doing its thing.

    Tom
    Anyone else remember in the '90s when the conspiracy theorists asserted that these OV-10s were going to be used to assist in the takeover of the US by the "shadow gov't?"

    I'm sure that footage is just part of the deception plan. Those OV-10s are probably reconfigured to "mind-reading" duties by ZOG by now

  13. #73
    Council Member carl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Denver on occasion
    Posts
    2,460

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tom Odom View Post
    The COIN bird like the OV10 has to do the FAC role--and the CAS on call with perhaps a limited lift capacity in a STOL airframe. The classic CAS bird like the AD, the A10, or even the A26/B26 (depending on variant and time frame) puts steel on target.

    Tom
    Those missions could shift depending on the situation. A shootdown would result in the A-1 turning into a Sandy, a combination CAS-FAC and everything else.

    At the risk of getting into a this old airplane vs. that old airplane arguement (interesting but sterile), the A-1 wasn't that much bigger than the OV-10; 50 ft by 38 ft vs. 40 ft by 41 ft. If you put some simple high lift devices on the wing and bigger tires on an A-1 you might be able to come close enough to the rough field performance of an OV-10 to make it worthwhile.

    My basic point though isn't to advocate on airplane over the other. It is that at this level of aerodynamic performance why go through the trouble of designing a new airframe? An OV-10 or A-1 airframe will get you close enough to where you want to go. Modern engines and avionics (I hesitate to say avionics because people will spend years and billions making those do everything for everybody) will take you the rest of the way.

  14. #74
    Council Member TROUFION's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    212

    Default $

    Quote Originally Posted by carl View Post
    My basic point though isn't to advocate on airplane over the other. It is that at this level of aerodynamic performance why go through the trouble of designing a new airframe? .
    Why, Becuase there is a contractor out there who needs to be paid to reinvent it.

  15. #75
    Council Member carl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Denver on occasion
    Posts
    2,460

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TROUFION View Post
    Why, Becuase there is a contractor out there who needs to be paid to reinvent it.
    I forgot about that part; also forgot about the project officer who will get a lot more promotion points for bringing in something new than bringing back something old.

  16. #76
    Council Member Tom Odom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    DeRidder LA
    Posts
    3,949

    Default Back to the Future, again and again and again

    We have done this before--big surprise I know

    Look at the A26/B26 transition from medium bomber (A26) in late WWII through Korea to the Congo in 1964 as "COIN" A/C. It was around that time that the Mohawk showed up and the Army did its best to slip it under the Air Force radar screen as an "unarmed" platform, which it ultimately became as a SLAR and IMINT bird.

    Then again never forget that the Blackbird (SR71) as an Air Force system was designed as an interceptor (fighter) 1962-1971?. It was the CIA that fielded it as the A12 recce bird in 1962; the SR71 replaced it as an Air Force recce system in 1968.

    Gratefully neither the recce nor the interceptor version could be flown slowly enough below their Mach 3.35 speed to allow them to be configured for COIN. That really would have made for interesting CAS.

    Best

    Tom
    Attached Images Attached Images

  17. #77
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    63

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jcustis View Post
    Anyone know where this might be located? I ran a couple of google strings on it, but came up with nothing.
    The original post reads like a press-release for Stavatti Aerospace. It appears Stavatti is a paper tiger and likely a hoax or fishing for R&D money, and I suspect the cited RAND study is nonexistent. Stavatti's page has a lot of pretty pictures but no indication of any aerospace or defense background.

    http://defencetalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=3930
    http://www.defensetech.org/archives/000009.html
    http://www.defensereview.com/modules...rticle&sid=304
    Last edited by mmx1; 06-03-2007 at 05:32 PM.

  18. #78
    Registered User
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    3

    Default USAf IrW Concept

    Recent White Paper from HQ AFSOC:

    http://smallwarsjournal.com/document...cept-may07.pdf


    Cheers,
    jak

  19. #79
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    35

    Default coin aircraft for the philippines

    Hi:

    The Philippines badly needs a squadron of new COIN aircraft for operations against Islamist terrorists mostly and the NPAs from time to time. Its OV10s are badly aging.

    During the Huk rebellion the Philippine Air Force made effective use of F-51 Mustangs in its against the Communist-led guerillas.

    I do know that there is a twin-engined version of the F-51 that goes by another name.

    An upgraded version of this would suit the Philippine armed forces just fine.

    It could be used to give hot pursuit to Islamist terrorists riding in pump boats who could use their crafts' speed to seek refuge in Sabah, Malaysia.
    lt could also double up for maritime patrol missions from the the Batanes islands near Taiwan to Tawi Tawi near Malaysia.

  20. #80
    Council Member Tom Odom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    DeRidder LA
    Posts
    3,949

    Default

    That was the F82 Twin Mustang, developed originally because it would double the range of the already phenomenol P51. 272 were built commencing in 1945; a handful flew iin Korea and were withdrawn by 1952.

    Tom

Similar Threads

  1. Counter-insurgency aircraft plans gain momentum in Defense Dept.
    By 120mm in forum Catch-All, Military Art & Science
    Replies: 178
    Last Post: 08-30-2012, 09:02 PM
  2. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 04-21-2009, 03:00 PM
  3. COIN & The Media (catch all)
    By Jedburgh in forum Media, Information & Cyber Warriors
    Replies: 79
    Last Post: 02-28-2009, 11:55 AM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •