New A-10 CoIn Squadron?

[LawVol]

http://aimpoints.hq.af.mil/display.cfm?id=20181

US Air Force ( USAF) Chief of Staff General Michael Moseley has told Jane’s he is considering the creation of a new counterinsurgency (COIN) squadron of A-10A Thunderbolt II aircraft for the Air Force Special Operations Command (AFSOC).

[Ed "Otto" Pernotto]

Folks,
I have posted a Concept paper on acquiring the AT-6 for COIN operations at my site here: http://www.excaliburrd.com/projects/

Also, I have also stood up a collaboration and innovation national security thinktank, please take a look at http://excaliburrd.com/cs/

and join or let me know what you think. I love this site and have it linked over at mine,
Thanks
Otto

[Tom Odom]

Otto,

Interesting A/C. I have to confess that I was wondering why drag out the T6Texan and again try to hang weapons on it. we did that in the Congo in the 60s and there were problems.

Keep posting and welcome. Tell us more about you here.

Tom

[Culpeper]

Very interesting. The A1 Skyraider was used very well for CAS in Vietnam et al. My dad used to convert the Skyraider at Alameda Naval Air Station for service in Southeast Asia when I was just a kid. I think they went straight to the RVN Air Force.

[SWJED]

The Official A-1 Skyraider Site

[Ed "Otto" Pernotto]

That A-1 was a beast, another similar aircraft was the T-28, initially used by both the Navy and USAF for training and later by the USAF as a close air support weapon. I've attached a link to my friend Brian Shul's Q&A on his background with training foriegn pilots, his deployment and subsequent shootdown in Vietnam, and what he thinks on modern day concept of using a prop driven airplane. If you are interested, please take a look here

http://www.excaliburrd.com/docs/AT-6...6BrianShul.pdf

[Dominique R. Poirier]

Just one question about the Skyraider.

The warbirds association I was member of owned one Skyraider (and two T-6 each of them propelled with 2 blades propellers). It was the biggest and the most powerful one propeller plane of the club; still bigger than the F-4 (though the Antonov AN-2 seemed to be the biggest, but that curious Russian bird was neither a fighter, nor a fast plane, by far).

So, this Skyraider was equipped with one 20mm cannon in each of its two folding wings, whose mechanisms were accessible for maintenance purpose once the wings were folded.

But there is something else about that plane I didn’t find much allusion to on the web, eventually. It consisted of a little door located on the let side below and behind the cockpit. Once you opened that door you could see quite a Spartan seat on which, strangely enough, one should find himself looking at the rear of the plane, that is not at all what a co-pilot or a crew bomber would be supposed to do! Moreover the infortunate guy who was supposed to seat here couldn’t see much of what could happen outside; for, thus "trapped" he had no cockpit and just, if my recollection is correct, one or two tiny round shaped windows: one on this small door, and the second located at the opposite side on the fuselage.

I once asked to someone what this second passenger was supposed to do in that plane, and I was just answered in an humorous and purposeful tone: “oh, that’s where the “monkey” seats down, but I don’t know what he was supposed to do while the plane was flying, actually.” It was certainly awful to be the monkey because this guy couldn't by no means anticipate on what the pilot could do!

My question is, does anyone know something about that, or was this Skyraider a special version?

[Culpeper]

From what I understand, all the Skyraiders acquired by the USAF and RVN were supplied by the U.S. Navy. The USN was replacing a lot of their Skyraider squardrons with jet aircraft. I do know that over the years there were some counter electronics types with a second seat. Other than that I would assume you are describing one these special types.

[Ed "Otto" Pernotto]

That’s actually a great question Dominique! I knew there was a door on the left side of the fuselage and never knew what it was for either. On this site:
http://www.boeing.com/history/mdc/skyraider.htm

"Different configurations carried a pilot in an enclosed cockpit, a pilot and another person (either a radar operator or a co-pilot), and a pilot and two other crew. The AD/A-5 could carry a crew of four, plus four passengers or 12 troops, four stretchers, or 2,000 pounds of cargo."

There were versions with 1, 2,3, and 4 seats, talk about designing a versatile aircraft! It's funny to me now, with all of our incredible computers, with modern production designs, all that, back in the "day" we made weapons systems that could be modified into other versions and today our F-22's couldn't cross the International Date Line without their computers tumbling.

[Smitten Eagle]

I'm not so critical of the idea of using some sort of training aircraft as a COIN aircraft. The Argentine navy uses Beechcraft T-34 Mentors with guns strapped on as a combat aircraft. Granted, the proud Argentines aren't conducting COIN ops (as far as I know), but it shows that there is a capability inherent in the training aircraft that may be coincident with a combat aircraft.

Not to mention that there are T-6s currently being flown at Vance AFB and NAS Pensacola, and in some years time there should be T-6s flown out of NAS Whiting and Corpus. Bottom line, it is a cheap, supportable aircraft that probably has the ability to kill (bad guys, not student pilots, that is.

[jcustis]

Anyone in the audience get the impression that these conversations are dominated by one service, as if the USA or USMC can't outline support requirements effectively?

[Ed "Otto" Pernotto]

It's not so much that these are all training a/c, it's just that they are relatively cheap, two seat propellor driven a/c that can fly at slower speed than jets, and given current (also relatively cheap) modifications such as NVG's, GPS, and GPS guided munitions, they can be very effective. Also, asking air forces that are trying to stand up like the Iraqi and Afghan AF's, these are a/c that can be operated much easier than high end jets.

[selil]

Originally Posted by jcustis

Anyone in the audience get the impression that these conversations are dominated by one service, as if the USA or USMC can't outline support requirements effectively?

I've gotten that impression for some time... In the Information Technology world we call it the invisible user... Who cares about the people that need this service we can buy cool toys!

[jcustis]

Originally Posted by selil

I've gotten that impression for some time... In the Information Technology world we call it the invisible user... Who cares about the people that need this service we can buy cool toys!

Interesting term. That's sort of how I feel when I am moving along on the Beltway, blinker on, and slowing down to find a gap to make a lane change. Folks seem to think I can't see that they obviously see me, but are just ignoring me in an attempt to box me out!

[selil]

Originally Posted by jcustis

Interesting term. That's sort of how I feel when I am moving along on the Beltway, blinker on, and slowing down to find a gap to make a lane change. Folks seem to think I can't see that they obviously see me, but are just ignoring me in an attempt to box me out!

Nascar driving.. You're moving along at a clip and you get ready to pass somebody and they speed up so you can't get in. Similar move is to drive alongside a truck and slow down so you can't pass. Even better yet you're waiting for the Q-tip in the Crown Victoria to nudge beyond and the guy in the clapped out Civic with a coffee canister pseudo-muffler go's buy on the shoulder.

The problem with the "invisible user" is solutions have a tendency of not meeting needs. We talk about top down design but it's bottom up requirements gathering. If the user isn't happy the tool/system/application isn't going to work. Only in the case of COIN people are shooting at the user.