Counter-insurgency aircraft plans gain momentum in Defense Dept.

[120mm]

I found this, unattributed, at BCKS COIN forum

Development of sensor packages could aid Pentagon's plans for dedicated COIN air fleet
A shift in Defense Dept. focus and the development of advanced airborne sensor packages just might provide the U.S. military with a platform that has eluded the Pentagon for decades--a dedicated aircraft fleet mix especially designed and deployed for counter-insurgency operations.
Terrorist attacks on U.S. soil and insurgent battles abroad have reawakened Pentagon interest in developing a dedicated counter-insurgency operations (COIN) fleet and capability. Aviation counter-insurgency experts and would-be COIN contractors have been gravitating to the Pentagon to brief officers of the need, capabilities and potential requirements for such aircraft.
The Rand Corp. recently completed an unclassified report, "COIN Aircraft Systems for the USAF and Friendly States Facing Insurgencies," this summer as part of the organization's Project Air Force. Rand notes that there will be a need for such a capability for some time to come. "Insurgencies are likely to be an enduring feature of the international security environment."
Rand also says USAF is using aircraft designed for other needs for COIN missions, but that aircraft specifically geared for such needs would be better.
The Air Force historically has modified high-tech jet fighters or bombers for COIN operations instead of investing in a counter-insurgency fleet, which would consist mostly of transport planes or lower, slower-flying turboprop aircraft for fixed-wing needs. Jets can be used for limited COIN work, while it would be difficult if not impossible to do the reverse.
The Air Force also has been loath to rob its fighter or bomber accounts for what it considers "fringe" work, such as counter-insurgency operations.
Now, some say the anticipated need for COIN fleets is greater.
And growing capability of precision munitions and other sensor packages is making it possible to develop more-effective COIN fleets.
"With sensor packages, that's where we could be able to do it," said Wray Johnson, a former Air Force special forces colonel who helped develop counter-insurgency operations. Johnson teaches at the U.S. Marine Corps College in Quantico, Va.
He also is the co-author of the 2003 book Air Power in Small Wars, Fighting Insurgents and Terrorists, which is on the USMC commandant's supplemental reading list, intended for majors and lieutenant colonels deploying to Iraq and Afghanistan.
High-flying, fast jets would be at a disadvantage for COIN work, which requires more loiter time, often closer to the ground. Jets are also expensive to operate and maintain, and the Pentagon and Congress are looking for ways to cut costs.
A turbofan light attack-trainer such as Argentina's AT-63 Pampa would have a flyaway cost of about $11 million, the Rand report says; a utility plane, even less. Utility planes could provide more cost-effective transportation than other airlifters such as C-130Js, according to Rand.
"Many in Congress may question the wisdom of future Air Force budgets unless they include investments that clearly contribute to fighting non-state actors," says Christopher Bolkcom, aviation expert for the Congressional Research Service.
To prove they're not simply modifying legacy platforms, the services are jointly developing programs for new aircraft to meet needs they say reflect the growing counter-insurgency requirements. One of these is the Joint Cargo Aircraft (JCA), a tactical airlifter meant for austere environments that can't be accommodated by current fleets.
But some of those programs have failed to get off the ground.
"In the case of the Army, the JCA program will probably falter for lack of money early in its execution, especially given Air Force resistance to buying anything other than C-130s," the Lexington Institute's Loren Thompson says. He notes that other COIN aircraft could meet similar fates.
"In the case of the Special Ops Command, it's hard to understand why an organization already buying the C-130, the V-22 tiltrotor and the next-generation combat search-and-rescue helicopter also needs a twin-engine turboprop. It sounds like special operators are 'overkilling' the short-hop airlift mission while neglecting more pressing needs."
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.
Some COIN-type aircraft and missions include propeller-driven or jet trainers for light attack, helicopters, utility and armed unmanned aerial vehicles, Rand notes.
Aircraft that have proven effective in COIN operations include OV-10s, A-37s, T-37s, AC-47 gunships, UH-60s, C-123 transports and such newer entries as Embraer Tucanos.
EVEN SUCH SMALL planes as turboprop civilian transports, including the Spanish CASA C-212, Pilatus Porter, Cessna 17 or Piper Arrow, have proved useful.
Many of these are analyzed in the Rand report, which also notes conceptual designs, like that of Idaho-based Stavatti Aerospace Machete.
Resembling a black shortened F-15, the Machete will be able to handle strike, ISR and other missions, says Stavatti Aerospace Chairman/CEO Christopher Beskar.
The plan is to build on many of the capabilities of the A-10 or even the old A-1 Skyraiders, Beskar said on Aug. 16. But the aircraft also is incorporating modern sensor packages and construction standards. The plane is made of only about 12% traditional aluminum, while a third of it is titanium, Beskar said. "It's built to have a lot more survivability."
After two years of briefings with Pentagon, Air Force and Rand officials, Beskar has altered the Machete design to better address COIN requirements for more cannon firepower, ISR capability and a more rugged aircraft.
Another indication of what the Air Force may require was the proposal requests issued this spring for an Iraqi counter-insurgency ISR aircraft that can also be tasked for communications work.
WHILE KEEPING an eye on the possible U.S. or American-backed markets, Stavatti has its sights elsewhere.
"[We're] export oriented," Beskar said, noting Colombia, Chile and other Latin American countries, which are looking to replace aging A-37s or OV-10s, are promising.
Latin America, with its history of insurgencies and drug-trafficking battles, provides the perfect backdrop for COIN airframes. The same type of aircraft that's been successful for battling drug traffickers--mobile, quick, persistent--would be effective against insurgents.
Johnson agrees the Latin American market would be a target-rich environment for COIN aircraft. But he argues the only way U.S. allies will buy into COIN fleets is if the Pentagon does first.
Stavatti Aerospace says its Machete concept, which resembles a black shortened F-15, can handle strike, intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance, and other missions important to the COIN initiative.
~~~~~~~~
By Michael Fabey, Washington

[slapout9]

We already have them or used to anyway. They were originally going to be part pf the Air Cavalry Division as conceived by General Gavin but was finally stripped out. The SLAR side ways looking radar was the father of JSTARS. I think the new AF COIN manual will have a lot of General Gavin's and Billy Mitchell's ideas in it. Here is a link with pics and back round data. http://www.armyav.org/board_ov-1b.htm

[Jimbo]

The real problem is optimizing loiter time with payload capacity with performance. Funny how the best aircraft tend to be turbo prop driven for this. There is a need, but the problem turns into "is it sexy". One of my MC-130 friends told me there are some great designs and such out there, but getting the fighter mafia to buy off on it will be hard. The other problem is gettin past the Armi/Air Force fixed wing friction. If the Army were to buy some Tucano's and arm them to use as an ISR and lisght attack aircraft, the ariforce would go nuts. Conversely, if the Air force were to buy these same aircraft, they probably wouldn't operate them at low altitudes. Maybe the Marines will coem through.

[wm]

The Army retired Slapout's OV-1 Mohawk, AKA the Widowmaker, over a decade ago. The following details are lifted from
http://www.ov-1mohawk.org

Mohawk Details
The Mohawk was developed by Grumman Aircraft as a photo observation and electronic reconnaissance airplane for the US Marines and the US Army. Due to budgetary constraints, the Marines bowed out early in the development cycle. The first Mohawk (YAO-1) prototype flew on April 14, 1959, and entered production in October 1959. It served the US Army standing watch in Europe, Korea, the Vietnam War, Central and South America, Alaska, and during Desert Shield/Desert Storm in the Middle East. The US Army retired it from service in September 1996. A total of 380 original OV-1 Mohawks were produced. All types were built between 1957 and 1969.

Four basic models of the OV-1 were produced, not counting the prototype or pre-production OF-1, YAO-1, and AO-1:

OV-1A This model was used for photo observation and reconnaissance and employed a forward-looking panoramic camera; 64 were built.
OV-1B This model was used to conduct electronic reconnaissance with a SLAR (side looking airborne radar) pod mounted under the fuselage; 101 were built.
OV-1C This model provided electronic reconnaissance by using an IR (infrared) imaging system; 133 were built.
OV-1D This model provided photo observation and gathered electronic intelligence with SLAR and IR; 37 examples were built.

Following are variations or conversions of the original production models:

JOV-1A This model featured XM-14 .50 calibre gun pods and 7- or 19-round 2.75 inch rocket pods; 27 of these were adapted from OV-1As.

JOV-1C These gunships were the same as the JOV-1A but began as an adapted short wing OV-1C with the IR gear removed.

OV-1 "Super C" These had an "A" fuselage, "B" wings, T53-L15A engines, nose and belly cameras, and IR gear. All "Super Cs" except the American Wings Air Museum's S/N 68-15936 which is pictured in flight on the front page and those lost in accidents or in Vietnam were later converted to "D" models.

OV-1 SEAMORE There were only a few Hawks converted in the SEAMORE project.

RV-1D The ELINT (ELectronic INTelligence) version of the OV-1D had all cameras, SLAR and IR gear removed and newer electronic surveillance equipment installed. OV-1Bs were later converted to "D" models and RV-1Ds.

OV-1E This model was an OV-1D with a "glass" cockpit. It was to be the next generation of Hawk with GPS (global positioning system) integrated flight system, 704 engines at 1800 SHP (shaft horsepower), new SLAR package, updated avionics, storm scope, with a corresponding gross weight increase. Two or three prototypes were flown.

[120mm]

I like the OV-10 Bronco, better.

[Jimbo]

I'm with you 120mm, although Piper was making a turbo-propped Mustang in the early 1980's as a COIN aircraft, might be acceptable to the fighter jocks.

[Smitten Eagle]

In terms of optimizing loiter time vs. payload (both sensor and weapons), I'm starting to think that UAVs and UCAVs are far superior to virtually any TACAIR out there.

Their sensors are just as good as those available on any F-18/16/15/B-1 (take your pick of manned fixed wing CAS), and their loiter time is enormous. I recall working in IZ with an armed predator. I asked the predator pilot (who was probably some AF reservist) the amount of playtime remaining. When he said 8+30, I was sold. He was armed with hellfires, which is as good as pretty much any other PGM for COIN ops (good firepower, not going to level a city block and shatter windows a mile away).

At the same time, I'm still a huge fan of rotary wing aviation for COIN. Cant beat the guns of the H-1s.

[BMT]

I read many glowing USAF report's about the OV-10 COIN test conducted in Thailand. The minute it got to VN off came the guns and bomb racks, strictly a FAC aircraft.
SOG/CCS had 2 A/C at Quan Loi. They install the guns and replaced the WP rockets with HE. The AF went into a nut roll until someone told them to shut up. We had 6 slicks and 4 guns. Sometime's when we were really strung out we could get a couple of Corba's from the 1st Cav.

BMT

[120mm]

imho, the armed UAS like the Predator has all the drawbacks of the Tomahawk, LGB and LGMs do: You're "guessing" that the truck are the bad guys and not a truck full of women and kids.

I'm not a big air support fan in COIN, but there is some utility in a small, manned and armed COIN aircraft. The kind that can slow down to 100 kts and go "eye-ball to eye-ball" with the target.

It also "personalizes" taking out the bad guys to a point the can understand and respect. Which takes away from the image that US soldiers are cowards who hide behind their technology and only win because they cheat. Which takes away one more I/O advantage for the bad guys.

Having said that, the UAS is a great intel "tool", and armed UAS would have a terrific role in taking on high profile threat in a higher intensity environment.

[TWC]

Originally Posted by 120mm

imho, the armed UAS like the Predator has all the drawbacks of the Tomahawk, LGB and LGMs do: You're "guessing" that the truck are the bad guys and not a truck full of women and kids.

I'm not a big air support fan in COIN, but there is some utility in a small, manned and armed COIN aircraft. The kind that can slow down to 100 kts and go "eye-ball to eye-ball" with the target.

It also "personalizes" taking out the bad guys to a point the can understand and respect. Which takes away from the image that US soldiers are cowards who hide behind their technology and only win because they cheat. Which takes away one more I/O advantage for the bad guys.

Having said that, the UAS is a great intel "tool", and armed UAS would have a terrific role in taking on high profile threat in a higher intensity environment.

While I think UAS (i.e. Predators) are great for a US military-involved COIN fight, remember that most partner nations do not usually have the ability to operate, support, and employ technically advanced unmanned systems. In a resource constrained environment, would you rather buy a UAS system OR buy a cheaper manned option and, with the left over money, pay your monthly salaries to your military?

Operating under the notion that, in the end, the partner nation will either win or lose the fight and the US is just an enabler, pushing UAS on a partner nation may just cause more problems. I think the better answer, and the one being pursued right now in Iraq, is to use manned ISR platforms like a King Air/Cessna 337/Caravan for the host nation...its easier and cheaper to employ over the long term. While UAS do offer amazing persistance, they creat HUGE problems with air space control, maintenance, communication bandwith, etc. Just one Airman's thoughts....

[Bill Meara]

When I saw the subject line for this thread I naively thought I was going to see a discussion of the venerable O2-B and its use as a platform for launching leaflets and loudspeaker messages (yes, that's right) at insurgents. Perhaps some talk of the C-130 flying broadcast transmitters.

BUT NO!

The entire thread dealt with steel-on-target, Widow-makers, A-37s etc.

Gentlemen, your conventional orientations are showing!

And it has always been this way. When I was involved in PSYOP campaigns in Central America, a crusty old Air Force officer once confessed about the way he remembered the difference between the O2-A and the O2-B (the PSYOP version). "A is for attack, B is for Bullshit."

This is why we don't do very well in this kind of conflict. We claim to understand that it is all about hearts and minds, but the organizational DNA is so biased toward "steel-on-target", that that is what we ALWAYS end up doing. Even here in SWJ.

[120mm]

We already have a thread on what kind of requirements that non-kinetic airpower should bring to the battlefield.

As the first step to fighting an insurgency is breaking up formed counterinsurgent groups and providing basic security, I think there might be a small role for a "kinetic" counterinsurgency aircraft. Light weight, lightly armed and capable of flying 100kt speeds with a good loiter time. An O-2 or something like it "might" do the trick; (I, personally, detest that POS. I've worked on them, and they are nothing but one continuous maintenance problem after another.) but whatever we do have needs to be capable of multirole ops.

Just because kinetics shouldn't be the centerpiece of a coin fight, doesn't mean you don't need to concern yourself with them. And because you aren't looking for a gross overmatch, you MUST put an inordinate amount of brain-power into thinking out the kinetic scenarios so that you are prepared with the minimum force necessary but be capable of big/small fights.

[120mm]

I hate to reply to my own post, but I thought it important to point out that "sophisticated 'Uninhabited Aerial Systems" (replaces UAV) are no longer out of reach of even the most primitive countries.

I could build you a live-link UAS for under a grand, and a 500 pound payload UAS for under $10,000, (with a CEP of under 10 m.) ordering materials over the internet. UAS technology is within reach of nearly anyone who cares to acquire it.

[steel rain]

A little off the subject but I have a question on COIN aircraft. I'll grant that from a pure performance perspective a turboprop would be the way to go in a COIN aircraft but wouldn't a piston aircraft have a smaller heat signature and less vulnerable to shoulder fired heat seeker missiles? I would also think it would be easier to mod the exhaust to make the signature even less. Just curious. Thanks

[120mm]

Turboprops give you the benefit of very low maintenance and use of a common fuel. Piston aircraft require much more maintenance and use special fuel.

It's important to remember what a COIN aircraft is supposed to do and be; it is NOT a fighter, and it is NOT there to drop JDAMS. Other folks can do that.

At the altitudes you need to fly to be effective at COIN and the typical state of insurgent resupply, SAMs are not the biggest concern. Your biggest worry should be RPGs, Snipers, lucky riflemen and thrown spears, arrows and rocks....

Walter, a Czech company, makes a 600 hp turbine engine capable of propelling just about anything you really need in a COIN aircraft. I really haven't put much thought into the idea sense Burt Rutan floated his ARES concept in front of the US Army and got a bunch of officers and warrants fired for violating the Key West Agreement.

[steel rain]

Originally Posted by 120mm

Turboprops give you the benefit of very low maintenance and use of a common fuel. Piston aircraft require much more maintenance and use special fuel.

It's important to remember what a COIN aircraft is supposed to do and be; it is NOT a fighter, and it is NOT there to drop JDAMS. Other folks can do that.

At the altitudes you need to fly to be effective at COIN and the typical state of insurgent resupply, SAMs are not the biggest concern. Your biggest worry should be RPGs, Snipers, lucky riflemen and thrown spears, arrows and rocks....

Walter, a Czech company, makes a 600 hp turbine engine capable of propelling just about anything you really need in a COIN aircraft. I really haven't put much thought into the idea sense Burt Rutan floated his ARES concept in front of the US Army and got a bunch of officers and warrants fired for violating the Key West Agreement.

I must admit I'm not familiar with the Key West agreement. I do realize the issues about fuel maintenance etc. On that you are correct. When I was in Iraq we lost a number of helo's including two Apaches to MANPADS. They do put out a lot of heat from the engines. Funny though I saw where one of our Apaches had a windscreen cracked by a rock thrown by a 14 year old kid on the ground. No kidding!!! I tried to get him into college in the states on a baseball scholarship I do know the aquisition and operation costs for most COIN aircraft are MUCH less than an Apache and an armed Predator at 4.5 Million dollars.

[TWC]

Originally Posted by 120mm

I hate to reply to my own post, but I thought it important to point out that "sophisticated 'Uninhabited Aerial Systems" (replaces UAV) are no longer out of reach of even the most primitive countries.

I could build you a live-link UAS for under a grand, and a 500 pound payload UAS for under $10,000, (with a CEP of under 10 m.) ordering materials over the internet. UAS technology is within reach of nearly anyone who cares to acquire it.

While you might be able to build a cheap UAS (not doubting your capabilities), the potential second and third order effects on a partner nation are problematic. As an example, currently the United States is struggling to manage airspace issues in regards to UAS. This same problem is currently being wrestled with in Europe as well. If NATO nations are currently unable to solve this problem, it does not bode well for "more challenged nations" that are under going an insurgency. Besides, if the government was working well then they probably wouldn't have an insurgency in the first place.

Therefore, in most cases, it makes more sense to just employ a simple, rugged aircraft instead of unmanned systems. The only thing that UAS give you is endurance. In most COIN scenarios there is enough manpower to bore holes in the sky and you don't have to worry about penetrating distant enemy airspace. While I like UAS, I just hate the thought of a defense contractor selling a high tech platform when low tech will work. Believing in the "big sky, little plane" theory will eventually cause problems.

BTW, I just found out that according to the latest Army doctrine, UAS stands for "unmanned airplane system." Now I don't really know why they changed it (i'm USAF), but I thought I would at least point it out.

[120mm]

Close, but no cigar: "UNINHABITED Aerial System. And I am no fan of UAS for COIN outside of the "eye in the sky". I was just pointing out that they were not that "advanced" technology. The tech has existed for 40 years.

I agree with you on airspace deconfliction and the desirability of using cheap, manned aircraft in COIN. I, like my favorite Food Channel personality, dislike "uni-taskers". And you can't haul a sick kid and mother in a UAS.

The Yugoslavs had the UTA 77, the Poles had the Wilga. Both were excellent COIN aircraft. Four seats, high wing, a 150 kt cruise, short, rough landing capabilities and hard points for light weapons seem to be useful characteristics.

[steel rain]

I may be over looking something but does anyone know where to find the report "COIN Aircraft Systems for the USAF and Friendly States Facing Insurgencies" Thanks

[Jesse9252]

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

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.