WT Forums

Home | WT Forums | Hogpedia | Warthog blog | Hosted sites
It is currently 29 Jun 2025, 22:27

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 24 posts ] 
Author Message
 Post subject: The need for a COIN bird
PostPosted: 31 Dec 2008, 21:20 
Offline
WT Game Warden
User avatar

Joined: 27 May 2003, 18:48
Posts: 2449
Location: Still fighting the indians in Western Massachusetts
Interesting article about the need for a COIN aircraft. By the way this is approved for public release. Brings up a lot of good points.

http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/loose.dtd

_________________
YGBSM !


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 01 Jan 2009, 05:25 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 08 Apr 2003, 00:31
Posts: 496
Location: Hurtling Rock, Alderaan
What the heck kind of file is .dtd??? Couldn't open it.... :roll:

_________________
\"Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a GAU-8/A at your side, kid.\"--Hawg Solo


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 01 Jan 2009, 14:14 
Offline
Hog Driver

Joined: 27 Oct 2002, 00:46
Posts: 952
Location: NAS Norfolk VA
same here


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 01 Jan 2009, 19:04 
Offline
WT Game Warden
User avatar

Joined: 27 May 2003, 18:48
Posts: 2449
Location: Still fighting the indians in Western Massachusetts
I open it with Adobe. Sorry my computer skills are lacking. Let me see if I can email it to someone and have them post it. I cant seem to. :oops: Coach check your email at cox.net.

_________________
YGBSM !


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 01 Jan 2009, 22:33 
Offline

Joined: 15 Oct 2004, 06:52
Posts: 813
That's a Microshit Wireless Aplication Protocol..did you get that on your cell phone? I don't know of any common programs that'll open it.

OC


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 02 Jan 2009, 00:27 
Offline
Hog Driver

Joined: 27 Oct 2002, 00:46
Posts: 952
Location: NAS Norfolk VA
How do you post a file on here?

Coach


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 02 Jan 2009, 00:45 
Offline

Joined: 15 Oct 2004, 06:52
Posts: 813
Quote:
How do you post a file on here?


Coach, I find the easiest way is just \"copy\" then \"paste\"

OC


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 02 Jan 2009, 02:56 
Offline
WT Game Warden
User avatar

Joined: 27 May 2003, 18:48
Posts: 2449
Location: Still fighting the indians in Western Massachusetts
I didn't know I could just copy and paste it. It is kind of large to do that though.

_________________
YGBSM !


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 02 Jan 2009, 10:41 
Offline

Joined: 15 Oct 2004, 06:52
Posts: 813
Here's the RFP (Request for Proposal) if anyone cares to bid it. The way it's written eliminates a lot of competition.

https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=ddd4f97d928bb12f3c0aba61c729c6d6&tab=core&_cview=1

And an archived article from Defense Tech.

http://www.defensetech.org/archives/003479.html

OC


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 02 Jan 2009, 16:18 
Offline
Hog Driver

Joined: 27 Oct 2002, 00:46
Posts: 952
Location: NAS Norfolk VA
Old Chief wrote:
Quote:
How do you post a file on here?


Coach, I find the easiest way is just "copy" then "paste"

OC


It's 32 pages...

Coach


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 02 Jan 2009, 18:28 
Offline

Joined: 15 Oct 2004, 06:52
Posts: 813
Quote:
It's 32 pages...


Holy Crap! Now I'm really curious. Coach, is there any reference to a different web site than the one Billy posted? That site is a web designer's Q&A site for wireless protocol questions.

OC


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 02 Jan 2009, 22:14 
Offline

Joined: 25 Jan 2003, 16:49
Posts: 970
Location: G-14 Classified
Turboprop and Armored?


Possess a night vision goggle (NVG)-compatible cockpit and external aircraft lighting. j. Be capable of loitering in excess of 4 hours while maintaining a 45 minute fuel reserve while loaded with two GBU-12 or Mk-82 type weapons

Include a space-stabilized electro-optical (EO) and infrared (IR) sensor mounted in a way that minimizes vibration and obstruction to the sensor’s field of view. b. Include a laser range finder, laser illuminator, and laser designator. The laser designator may either be separate from or integrated with the EO and IR sensor. c. Be capable of enabling a pilot or sensor operator in either seat to view real-time, full-motion video, and capture still image.

Closest system to this is raytheons AT6-B. Without diving into the past and resurrecting old airframes and tooling.

Image

Image

The closest active system to this is the Retired Marine OV10D+ Broncos, currently flying in the Phillipine Airforce.

...But there was a reason we didnt bring the OV10A to WWG1 right...????

Never understood why the DOD goes through this 20 Year Cycle of returning to mission types it convieniantly forgets.


Back in the late 70's the PA-48 Enforcer was proposed for a COIN contract.

Image

South America and Southeast Asia still fly the Tucano and Marchetti Types today.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piper_PA-48_Enforcer

My View,

It's a rugged, well built airplane, and the design has a LOT of potential. However, the primary problem the airplane had...and has...is that the nose was so long that it was not possible to see the target you were bombing at the time you had to release the bomb.

The sight depression put the pipper squarely in the middle of the cowling, so it significantly complicated the bombing problem. It basically eliminated all of the progress that has been made in the last 40 years for computed bombing and took the art/science back to the Korean war!

There were also literally pages of major stuff that did not meet USAF spec, even back in the 1980s. After the tests in the early 1980s -- and after the USAF said they didn't want to have anything to do with it -- Piper and the aircraft's original designer made some significant changes to the airplane for a production specification which would have corrected a lot of the problems. To bring the PA-48 back to life would take an incredible amount of time, money, and effort because it would be more than just blowing the dust off the design...it would mean completing the re-design and tooling up for a completely new aircraft.

This is why taking an off-the-shelf aircraft like the T-6 and converting it into a killer is a better idea financially and practically.

Several Countries fly the militarized version of the PC-9. Australia flies this aircraft for JTAC-FAC currency training requirements

Image

_________________
\"A good plan violently executed now is better than a perfect plan executed next week. \"

George S. Patton


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 02 Jan 2009, 22:32 
Offline
Hog Driver

Joined: 27 Oct 2002, 00:46
Posts: 952
Location: NAS Norfolk VA
The OV-10 is not off the table...but they did play in WWDS with the USMC. In fact, one was shot down in the opening days over Kuwait.

There are three primary designs currently in the running; the Beechcraft T-6, the Embraer Super Tucano and the Pilatius PC-9 (Swiss).

As far as the long nose and visual bombing, technology has solved that problem. We already have a system in the A-10 that allows a bomb to be dropped \"visually\" on a target that is not in the HUD FOV.

The Enforcer was a pretty piece of work! But the time was not right, COIN was not in the lexicon in the 1980's.

Here's another paper from 2006 on the same subject:

https://www.afresearch.org/skins/rims/q ... nginespage

Coach


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 03 Jan 2009, 04:27 
Offline
WT Game Warden
User avatar

Joined: 27 May 2003, 18:48
Posts: 2449
Location: Still fighting the indians in Western Massachusetts
Sorry guys, I'm glad I brought up a good subject, but pissed that I cant get the paper up. Coach were you able to open the one I sent you in an attachment ? If so anyone that wants it, I will forward it to them.

_________________
YGBSM !


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 03 Jan 2009, 05:10 
Offline

Joined: 25 Jan 2003, 16:49
Posts: 970
Location: G-14 Classified
Coach, I'll expand it a little so those not in the know can understand your \"Lexicon statement\". I think its pretty relevant to explain the Hows and why's from my own perspective. I'm sure your viewpoint may Differ.

I flew Ov10A's 8 Years prior to WWG1. A few of us from 27th TASS came over as ALO FAC. I spent DS/DS in a hummer with the army Radios and lots of dead batteries :) We also adhoc Mission Fitted C130s for the same purpose. (a quasi Radio Relay-ASOC TACNET) It was a comical adventure.
Our OV10A's were still very much the same as they were since Vietnam, minor a few Navaid Updates. The aircraft we brought back from Germany had HAVEQUICK. We did not have any Threat Warning and avoidance system sufficient enough to be considered a non-liabilty. Of which im Glad. The OV10 has a Very nasty heat Signiture with Both Turbines Exhaust Pointing Outward. Our aircraft were also 750 SHP rated vs the Marines 1040 SHP. No matter how much Investment the Marines placed into the OV10D, the Manpad threat was too high. We were always killed over Hunter-Ligget By stinger crews. To Fly FAC and maintain the 4 hr @250 Knots, we always carried the big 230 gallon fuel tank below the fuselage. With the low power engines, continued flight with a full load of fuel above about 20 degrees C was almost impossible. You had to punch off the 230 gallon tank as soon as possible. This was all from 300 Hour Flight throw away engines some had as much as 7000+ hours on them! My introduction to the squadron (20th TASS) was the loss of an aircraft when an engine failed and the crew couldn’t dump the tank in time. I later parked one on a road in korea for the same issue.

The chopping Block for TAC and OV10's was long before WWG1 started. This all started From the NATO Fighter limit during the ColdWAr europe. GLAC and C23 Sherpas. Which is comical in knowing that the C23's were originally ment to haul F100 engines around and never did. The Fulda Gap quickly became The war for Turn Key minuteman operators.

In Germany, especially in the lower two thirds, the mountainous and hilly terrain made almost all communication between the fighters and the any ground control almost impossible. Due to the altitude and the radios on board, the OV-10 was the only reason ordinance could be brought to bear on a target. Reportedly, the Air Force never told the Army that they were removing the OV-10s. The effectivity of conventional airpower went from a high of almost 90 percent on target to something very much lower. I’m not sure how accurate the report is that the Army didn’t know, but I can testify that the Army commanders were not happy at all. Maybe no one told them how we were really going to fight the war in that theater.

The mission of the OV-10s, when we weren’t controlling fighters, was boring. The ops desk would issue you a fully fueled jet and an empty frag. This means you had four hours of just flying over Germany—alone, unarmed, and unafraid. In the low fly areas, you could fly at 250 feet so low level practice, acro, and practice approaches and landings made up the normal mission. I know the idea of a jet all your own for 4 hours really sounds great, but once you have flown a few four hour missions with almost nothing to do but bore holes in the sky, you begin to understand the bore in boring. You can only do so much acro before you make yourself sick.

Alone in the skies of Germany, without anyone to control or talk to, you really couldn’t practice the FAC mission very well. You could troll the plains for fighters to jump or practice SAM breaks from the Hawk batteries that were locking their missiles on you, but there were too few Hawk batteries or fighters around to take up 4 hours. Plus the ROE (Rules of Engagement) limited you to two 90 degree turns and no fighter could turn with an OV-10 anyway. The OV-10 had a 7 G limit and flew around at about 250 knots—at 250 knots, you could rarely even get to 7 Gs, but you could always turn like a son of a gun. Once in a two ship OV-10 formation, we out turned an F-15 with back to back tactical turns. The F-4s had no hope. This doesn’t mean an OV-10 would make any kind of fighter, it’s way too slow—it just means it could turn really fast.

The real mission of the OV-10 is the one we got to accomplish too seldom—Forward Air Control. The FAC mission in the high threat European theater was significantly different than the original FAC mission in Vietnam. In the low threat environment, you held at 10,000 feet well outside the Man Portable Air Defense System (MANPAD) and the light weapons fire and directed the fighters onto the target. In Europe, if you showed your head much above 1,000 feet within 10 miles of the Forward Edge of the Battle Area (FEBA), you were toast. Consequently, the OV-10 FAC held at the frag rendezvous point about 10 to 50 miles behind the FEBA, and the ground FAC sat with his M-113 track, track commander, track driver, jeep, trailer, ROMAD (Radio Operator, Maintainer, and Driver) (an enlisted specialist), and 1 million dollars in radio gear with the army field commander very close to the FEBA. The job of the airFAC in the OV-10 was to get into contact with all the ground FACs in his frag area. When the fighters arrived at the rendezvous point, the airFAC determined their ordinance, target locations, and frag info, then parceled the air power to the proper ground FACs. The means of this parceling was through the IP brief which was a highly abbreviated method of transmitting the key target, run-in, initial point, and weapons information. This system sounds ungainly, but it was highly effective and did not waste air power. The OV-10, with 4 plus hours of fuel and bunches of radios could loiter at the rendezvous point almost forever and manage multiple flights and a division of ground FACs. The correct ordinance and fighters would get to the correct targets. The Combat Air Patrol (CAP) fighters who provided air cover could be controlled safely by the airFAC. When the fighters returned from their bombing runs, the airFAC could pick up their Bomb Damage Assessments (BDA) and pass this back to the Air Support Operations Center (ASOC) and to the ground FAC. Since the airFAC was usually the only aircraft on the front that was in contact with the ASOC, he could pass the Army immediate air support requests. When things got really hot on the ground, the FAC-A could send air power directly to the trouble spot. The FAC-A was the main reason the Army could depend on the Air Force to put bombs on CAS targets—then they moved the OV-10s out of Europe.

Don’t get me wrong, we won the Cold War, and one of the reasons was the GLCMs and the changing US policy, but the change from the traditional FACs to the new variety of FACs caused great pains to the Army and to CAS. One of the biggest changes was who got the air power. When the FAC-A was there to partial out the fighters, the right bomb got to the right target and the correct unit was supported. When the ground FACs, mostly Lieutenants didn’t have supervision, the fighters went to the guy with the best radios and the most persistence. The FAC-A Lieutenants already perfected stealing air power from each other. I was one of the best. I could steal fighters from the most experienced—that’s one of the ways you could make a 4 hour OV-10 mission palatable. On the ground, the more fighters you could drag in, the better your Army commander liked you. If he saw you as an asset rather than a hanger-on, you could make great points for the Air Force and yourself. The problem was, by listening in on the FAC communications, the Soviets figured out how to steal air power too. I can’t say how we found out, but the brass wasn’t very happy. That’s when we received more secure radios and became fully HAVEQUICK on the UHF radios (a method of preventing radio jamming). They even started sending us up with communication troops as observers to work the radios and keep an eye on radio security. Since we carried the equivalent of a radio station with us every flight that was a pretty good idea. I don’t think they were keeping an eye on us too, but who knows.

In 84, The 20th Tactical Air Support Squadron (TASS), my squadron, and the 704th TASS left Germany with all our aircraft and made the long trek over the pond to George AFB. There we formed the 27th TASS. We deployed, without the OV-10s, every year back of Europe to support our Army units, and we bemoaned the end of the OV-10 in Europe and eventually the end of the OV-10 in the Air Force.
Hence our aircraft were mothballed, as well as other dedicated TAC assets were absorbed into ACC. in 1992-93 with marines following suit in 1995. Clinton ERA defense cuts were the final Nail.

I spent 3 Years Flying CounterNarcotics and FAC work all through out South America, I later trained BATF Agents and Border Patrol. Although Border patrol opted for the Much older L-19 Surplus aircraft and Light Civil aviation types.

I am a little Biased It was where I began my career.

_________________
\"A good plan violently executed now is better than a perfect plan executed next week. \"

George S. Patton


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 03 Jan 2009, 06:34 
Offline
WT Admin
User avatar

Joined: 16 May 2004, 12:44
Posts: 1517
Location: DMAFB, AZ
Career field: Crew Chief
Thanks Thug, that was really interesting.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 03 Jan 2009, 14:48 
Offline
WT Game Warden
User avatar

Joined: 27 May 2003, 18:48
Posts: 2449
Location: Still fighting the indians in Western Massachusetts
Yeah way cool. So what do you think the need is for a COIN bird and with your knowledge of whats out there for airframes, whats your wag on it ?

_________________
YGBSM !


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 03 Jan 2009, 15:59 
Offline

Joined: 25 Jan 2003, 16:49
Posts: 970
Location: G-14 Classified
The Problem is singular.

What is \"COIN\"

This is the route of the problem, Like Coach had said \"Lexicon\"

What does Coin mean to you and the people that are throwing this term around.

How I define Coin:

Coin is very simple a forward Scout that command and coordinates Eyeball Intel, Acts and Directs forces to the Contact area. It requires an ability to efficiently loiter for long hours of the time. The crews must become intimate with the operations area. In the action phase it must provide a method to coordinate ground and air power to the contact area, and maintain a dynamic mobile order of battle. While Lasers and GPS may do this for Fighter aircraft handoff. It will not work for Ground Personal. Their too ill trained and technology lacking to be effective. What Iraqi ground forces need is Communications and a Visable Sight and sound Responseability. Wp/Bombs work well for Grunts.

Now Coin+1: Sensory Intel Collection.

Requires a deploymant platform of Sensory Equipment. and a Sensor mission Officer. This is not specifically a Target/FLIR pod but more in the form of Intrusion Devices to be airdropped along a large patrol area, Much in the way that P3 orions drop sonobuoys, but this is for Land. the Marine Corps has a wide experience in this. They have been utilizing this technique since Vietnam, and Lost it when the OV10s were parked and it was no longer deemed appropriate on the pointy nose side of the Corps.

Coin+2: Light Utility, Self supported Forward basing and Movement. Re-supply.

Why? Iraq is huge with very huge holes in its perimeter from Iran, Syria and Turkey. This requires Forward basing and Deployment of Key SOF personal. It would also Require you To resupply these forces. By logistic rotating Crews, you can resupply needed Supplies and still maintain a mission without external support. Maintenance issues can be handled or requested with a time delay. COIN operations cannot be delayed to lack of Crew Support.

Now the issue of Survivability. No Coin aircraft has this capability. the minute it runs in on a target or drops below 10K it is in \"effective\" manpad range. Below 5000 Feet it is dropping into effective Poor skilled AAA Range, below 1000 it is in Small Arms Range.

The closest aircraft to survive this is the Light Armored Tucano. Iraq has experiance with these. They owned 27 of them Before we blew them up. Brazil also has a good military export relationship with IRAQ. Ive Flown the EMB-340 its a very nice aircraft and the Guns are Internal mounted. Not Hung on stores, which opens up more Ordinace/Sensory ability.

The AT-6 will do allot in the form of Interoperability and Growing the Iraqi Airforce Rapidly alongside the USAF. That is the real Key Issue. THe IRAQI Airforce needs a partner to grow them with Technical Knowledge and Experiance. This where we have a problem. The only Community we have in the DOD to do this is A10 Crews and Army OH58 Kiowa Crews. these are the Prime Sensory, FAC experts. One more Action oriented and the Other more Intell/Coordinateing of Ground Forces Related.

Long term wise the Embilical chord needs to be clipped and the IRAQIS need to be self sufficient. Keeping IRAQI military in US hardware only forces them to be dependent on us and will actually stagnate the process. What IRAQ needs is Self Driven Intrest in being active in their Defense Strategy. They need a SOF/Coin ability that is self sufficient and proactive.

What is being pimped to the Iraqis atm is basically a really fast POLICE force that shoots back.

Their is much more to counterinsurgency than getting their quick and dropping BOMBS. The reconnaisance Phase and prevention is the most critical of all. But none of it matters if you cant sustain the sortie generation with overlapping Presence.

In MY Design View it is very much what the OV10 Was. A Patrol Aircraft with Good Visability. Long sortie Duration. Weapons Deployment and Marking Capability. Cargo Area for ADHOC extra Crew Stations or Personel Movement. and Supplies/Airdrop of Needed materials or People.

IMHO. They need a Unit that Incorporates a Groundforce together with an Ariel Observer Asset. The units need to be come intimate and live together. Their order of battle and surveilence must include each other in the operational mindset. This is what makes an effective coin system work.

The IRAQI military is too small, and inexperianced logistically, maintenance, and offensive wise. To operate like the US military does. It is easy to see how convieniant our operations and lives are in the DOD.

For the short term the AT-6 is a good way to get them started into becomeing an Airforce again and stimulating their Fighter pilot core. But its not a Longterm solution to the original problem.

_________________
\"A good plan violently executed now is better than a perfect plan executed next week. \"

George S. Patton


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 03 Jan 2009, 16:00 
Offline
Hog Driver

Joined: 09 Nov 2002, 05:10
Posts: 614
To add on... The COIN bird buy is a result of many people looking at the expected airpower mission over the next 10-20 years and realizing that it doesn't take an $80 million jet to drop a 2000# bomb on a terrorist's cranium. For less than the cost of a single Raptor, you can have a squadron of 24 COIN aircraft designed, tested, built and in place. The operating costs are much lower and the aircraft fit the bill with their ability to loiter and carry a fair amount of ordnance. Maintenance and replacement costs are also much cheaper.

The threat allows lighter aircraft to be employed at an \"acceptable risk\" (whatever that means) to the AF. The AF can have more aircraft overhead for longer periods of time all at a cheaper cost. There is one VLJ in the competition. It looks very much like a tiny A-10, with most dimensions and carrying capacities on a scale of 50%, but can loiter longer and does have a somewhat armored cockpit.

The AF is still investing in the \"Big War,\" which means researching and buying the big, fast, expensive, point-nose aircraft, but they're now realizing that the \"Long War\" can be executed effectively with smaller, cheaper and more numerous COIN aircraft. There are many different opinions on this issue in the AF, but much like we always do, we'll give our input and when the decision is made, we'll shut up and color and perform the mission with what we're flying. Though I'd rather be in a Hog, being in the cockpit of an armed T-6 will make me no less motivated to protect our troops on the ground.

There are rarely instances where we can't complete the mission with the equipment we're given. I think history shows that our dedication to accomplish the mission and protect our fellow countrymen allow us to overcome the seemingly insurmountable, no matter the equipment provided or tactics used.

*Disclaimer - Some of the COIN info above is generalized since I don't know exactly what's been released yet...


Last edited by TinyGiant on 03 Jan 2009, 16:10, edited 2 times in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 03 Jan 2009, 16:03 
Offline

Joined: 25 Jan 2003, 16:49
Posts: 970
Location: G-14 Classified
NEWS RELEASE
On the web: http://www.dsca.mil Media/Public Contact: (703) 601-3859
Transmittal No. 09-04
Iraq – Texan II Aircraft, Spare Parts and Other Support
WASHINGTON, December 10, 2008 – On Dec. 9, the Defense Security Cooperation Agency notified Congress of a possible Foreign Military Sale to Iraq of 36 AT-6B Texan II Aircraft as well as associated support. The total value, if all options are exercised, could be as high as $520 million.
The Government of Iraq has requested a possible sale of 36 AT-6B Texan II Aircraft, 6 spare PT-6 engines, 10 spare ALE-47 Counter-Measure Dispensing Systems and/or 10 spare AAR-60 Missile Launch Detection Systems, global positioning systems with CMA-4124, spare and repair parts, maintenance, support equipment, publications and technical documentation, tanker support, ferry services, personnel training and training equipment, U.S. Government and contractor engineering and logistics support services, and other related elements of logistics support. The estimated cost is $520 million.
This proposed sale will contribute to the foreign policy and national security of the United States by helping to improve the security of a friendly country.
The proposed sale of these aircraft, equipment, and support will enhance the ability of the Iraqi forces to sustain themselves in their efforts to bring stability to Iraq and to prevent overflow of unrest into neighboring countries.
The proposed sale of this equipment and support will not alter the basic military balance in the region.
The principal contractors are:
Hawker Beechcraft Corporation, Wichita, Kansas
Pratt & Whitney Corporation, Quebec, Canada and Bridgeport, West Virginia
Martin Baker in Middlesex, United Kingdom
Hartzel Propeller, Piqua, Ohio
Canadian Marconi, Broken Arrow, Oklahoma
L-3 Vertex, Madison, Mississippi
There are no known offset agreements proposed in connection with this potential sale.
The proposed sale will involve multiple trips to Iraq involving many U.S. government and contractor representatives over a period of 15 years for program management, program and technical reviews, training, maintenance support, and site surveys.
There will be no adverse impact on U.S. defense readiness as a result of this proposed sale.
This notice of a potential sale is required by law; it does not mean that the sale has been concluded.
-30-

_________________
\"A good plan violently executed now is better than a perfect plan executed next week. \"

George S. Patton


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 03 Jan 2009, 19:52 
Offline

Joined: 15 Oct 2004, 06:52
Posts: 813
Ok folks, this is the original article that was posted by Hawg 166. It's in PDF format so you'll need Acrobat reader to open it. You're right Billy, it's an interesting paper.

http://www.excaliburrd.com/docs/AT-6Project/ACSCPaperAT-6USAFInvestment.pdf

OC

Edited for broken link


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 03 Jan 2009, 21:25 
Offline

Joined: 25 Jan 2003, 16:49
Posts: 970
Location: G-14 Classified
Their are a few issues I have with this Essay. Its nothing more of a cost analysis for a proposed budget that doesnt focus on what the actual mission needs are.

It is something i still remember today about what an Army Armor officer once told me. \"The rule of desert combat is to go very fast and rap allot of steal around it.\"

That sounds great and well for occupational Ground presence. However, Their is no advantage to aviation other than standoff attack, to negate Airdefense.

Airdefense security is always going ot be a priority no matter what Aircraft is fielded. The only thing that can provide that is Ground occupation. IF you allow the enemy uempedded Air defense prep. That allows the enemy an engagement capability. Helicopter, A10, Drone, Stealth bomber doesnt really matter. It can still be downed by Manportable Technology.

The War in Iraq is an Infantry/guerrila war requiring Supporting ARMS that are timely and expediant to support the ground forces. This is why we utilise FAC's. or overwatch coordinaters.

In Vietnam, The jungle provided a margin of safety for propeller driven aircraft. It did not require the performance of a WW2 Prop Fighter. the only advantage to the A-1 was response time, and sortie availbility. Most often and not it requires a standby strike asset awaiting. This requires hand off and coordination. Regardless of how many bombs and durability it had. The differnce being is the scale of escalation once contact with a Guerilla Enemy is countered. In Vietnam the true size and force of the VietKong and NVA was camelflouged in terrain. It was on the enemies Terms to decide the order of battle and what scope and size to expose. Your unable to determine this until they act.

The biggest problem with these proposals, is that it is looked at more as chess peices. This isnt stratego where you get x amount of tanks, battleships and strike aircraft to face the same x ammount qty/type threat.

In Iraq it poses the same conditions as in Vietnam only that the terrain has been replaced by Urban built up areas, where identification of Combatants vs Non-combatants is impossible with out ground truth verification.

This is where it comes into question for me as to what exactly is the focus and security plan with a \"COIN design\"

100Knot observation aircraft does well over an urban Area, you can use eyeballs and sensory technology to investigate parking lots, alleys and roof tops. In the open terrain such as a open Wadi, Farm hamlet area a little faster aircraft can do the job and patrol a larger sector. But this is all based on active movement, and easily identifiable combat intent by Guerrila forces. Again this comes down to the pilot identifying recognisable signature, whether its equipment, tactical movement etc. It will always require a knowledgeable ground reconnaisance element to make contact and determine the nature. As Combat/recon Aviator It is very difficult to scrub the truth from an aircrafts viewpoint. To me a truckload of Iraqi national guard with weapons is no differnt than a Truckload of Taliban. It will always be a truck with men and weapons to me.

The truth is going to come from competent Ground personel. or the enemy initiating hostile intent.

So this beggs into Question what is the security strategy? How is it planned to be implemented. and what is the role of the \"Aircraft, its envelope and its responsebility.

All that has been said so far is Cost Tradeoffs for a Fiscal budjet. Which never has had anything to do with combat action

Be careful with what Contractors are trying to solicite to the masses and media.

You can propse a Drone or an A10. What exactly is needed? That is the only thing that wil anser this question.

What it looks like to me is they just want to incorporate a bomb mule and a Smokescreen.

_________________
\"A good plan violently executed now is better than a perfect plan executed next week. \"

George S. Patton


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 04 Jan 2009, 02:12 
Offline
Warthog VFW
User avatar

Joined: 27 Jan 2002, 14:02
Posts: 6162
Location: IL
The Iraqi's would do just fine with the Texan or the Bronco because, lets face it if they get into trouble with anyone they'll be dailing \"001\"(sufix for the USA)

Then we'll commit our Forces to their Defense. The Iraqi's won't even be close to \"Sole Control\" of their Military like before probably for atleast 15-20 years.
We'll probably Train them,They might even BUY jets from us but remember they flew mostly \"Russian or French\" aircraft.

If we sell or \"Well probably give them to them Free and support them for Free\" seems we do that best.

Besides all that from a \"crewdawg\" but we have plenty of \"Mothballed\" planes that would work fine. Hell we use to patroll the boarder in the 80's with CT-39's they could use those basically as a \"JSTAR\" for their \"Police Force Air Force.

But that's just my .02 worth.

Goose

_________________
\"Live Free Or Die\"


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 16 Jan 2009, 08:27 
Some reason we can't use purpose equipped UAV's for this role?


Top
  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 24 posts ] 

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group