Forum: Air Power

With Flare/DIRCM combo (via the Terma AMASE pod), MANPADS is not going to be much of an issue anymore. Besides with the advent of PGMs the need to get so low & slow will be reduced. Old-style dumb weapons required you to come straight at the target and the closer the higher the accuracy. PGMs can be fired off axis and maintain the same accuracy for it's entire max range. It's a totally different ballgame thanks to PGMs.

The A-37 is just as vulnerable as the OV-10 when it comes to MANPADS. Actually the slow speed and better SA of the OV-10 allows it to detect and engage the MANPADS crew (via the belly gun and PGMs) sooner than the A-37 could.

At least there is a DIRCM system in operation for a slow mover like the OV-10.

F-16.net Sponsor

What Snake-1 one pointed out about OV-10 is very true, the OV-10 just wasn't survivable. The DIRCOM takes a lot of energy and I bet its more for a one-time shot in that kind of situation, not for defeating saturation attacks. Plus, how is that going to fend off cannon shells? There were 600 of the A-37's in Vietnam and they lost less than two dozen to hostile fire. That's a pretty amazing stat.

There's something in use right now that's better than DIRCM. But, you're right. DIRCM, LAIRCM (the improvement for your cargo types), Moose Fire, etc., won't stop you from getting hit by cannon rounds. Then again, with the sensor pod, you'll have better SA on threats from a longer distance.

Again, this isn't a case of pulling A models out of the Boneyard and retrofitting them. It's a similar looking, but improved design. This is a brand new plane, much like the Mudhen was a completely new F-15, and the Super Bug was a completely new F-18. Its performance in Vietnam is really irrelavent, because this isn't your daddy's OV-10!

What's better than DIRCM?

madrat, it does not take a lot of electricity to run the laser. It is not a burning laser, just a blinding one. It takes about 2-3 watts of energy. Also, there are two pods carried that each carry a DIRCM turret. The introduction of PGMs has allowed the support aircraft to stay above the cannon danger zone (for the most part) so it makes sense that this will translate to safer OV-10(X) (or any PGM COIN aircraft) operations.

On the whole MANPADS saturation issue, considering that the Iraqi insurgency (the IN in COIN) is well resourced and funded there have been no saturation MANPADS attacks on US forces. Insurgents do not have the resources or funds for that kind of attack. Besides, the flares will fool some of the inbound MANPADS and allow the DIRCM units to concentrate on the missiles that are still headed to the OV-10(X).

The classic OV-10 had a problem because of it's tactics, ie low, slow, and straight to the target. The OV-10(X), with PGMs, will not use those same tactics. Also, the Boeing company did not come up with the concept of the OV-10(X) for the heck of it. The DoD asked for a proposal that stated turboprop AC. The other contenders are the Super T, A-6 Texan II, and the A-67 (among others)... all turboprops. If the OV-10(X) is vulnerable, then they are doubly so due to only having one engine as opposed to the OV-10(X)'s two.

Although, a lighter, more economical, faster flying and more maneuverable single-engine Super T with a tail-on aspect to hypothetical manpad threat, would likely be generating a smaller IR signature to cue on, no?

Anyway, USAF by 2015 will have a significant, unprecedented new capability @ 50+ Hunter Killer/recon sorties per day (probably worth about 3-4 sorties each vs a LAAR concept). If USAF also ends up opting for additional light CAS/armed recon (besides A-10C), via an OV-10X, etc, it should be noted it will likely be contributing to that 1,800 combat aircraft goal by 2025 at the expense of new buy combat aircraft, that it would be competing with budget wise?

My support again... would be for a Marine and even Army COIN focus in this capability, if required and not in a further increased, USAF COIN heavy doctrine, more so than is already planned for FY15 and beyond. IMHO.

Respects.

On the subject of which one is a brighter IR MANPADS target is an interesting question. For instance, the Super Tucano has a 1600 hp powerplant while the OV-10(X) has two at 1040 each.

What will attract more, one bright source or two dimmer ones that are partially obscured (depending on the engagement angle)?

Spud, you asked about an improvement to DIRCM. I mentioned it up there, though I should've clarified. It is LAIRCM. It is an improvement to DIRCM that some of the heavies carry today (Large Aircraft Infared Counter Measures). I can't get too far into it on open sourse, but it's already seen success operationally. Even though it was originally built for the big boys, the Super Bronco could definitely utilize something similar.

LAIRCM is DIRCM for cargo jets. DIRCM directs a laser into the oncoming missile as does LAIRCM.

LAIRCM is a specific system and DIRCM is a generic term for a directed laser for countermeasure use.

Regarding DIRCM: assuming speculated COIN birds would be a more suitable option for USMC than USAF, the USMC is reportedly planning to have IOC 'Assault ship' TADIRCM (e.g., for CH-53E type platforms) by 2014-15. (public data). Whether a hypothetical USMC COIN platform (or AC-130-lite, etc) would also integrate such TADIRCM at that time, rather than LAIRCM, will have to be seen.

Note: the expected USAF/USN fast jet/tactical combat required TADIRCM/DIRCM info is apparently not yet published in public docs though. (regardless of various 'MOTS' fast jet DIRCM either being avaiable today already, or soon available for integration on potential customer's existing platforms as required).

Spudman

With all due respect I'm afraid that you are not hearing what is being said.

Any battle scanario of the future MUST consider operations of the combat envelope from the ground surface up. This also must include any and all enemy weapons systems facing us. To do other would put any aircrew in a very hostile situation if he were forced into it. Therefore, survivability of the aircraft is a key issue. And a bird like the OV-10, regardless of the model, I doubt will be able to survive in a low in your face enviroment because it is limited by speed and maneuvability.

As far as Boeing developing a turbo prop COIN bird --- THEY WERE TOLD TO DO SO by the powers at the time. And regardless of what engines they put on it, or gee-wiz avionics or weapons systems they adorn it with its still an OV-10 with the same airframe and nearly the same operations envelope. And the more garbage they add to it the smaller that operations envelope and degree of survivability goes.

Please be careful when you talk about the little A-37 as you have two of us with over 700 combat sorties between us and know its capabilities and limitations. Using the "Stuka" maneuver (a vertical bomb delivery with 35 mils set in the sight and pickling at about 8 to 10,000 feet) you could, with two aircraft, put the dumb ordnance within 30 to 45 feet of the FAC's mark , pull off and reposition while the ssecond aircraft does the same. THis means that the second bomb would be within 30 seconds of the first and well before the dust has settled or before the enemy could raise his head safely and you still have a high degree of survivability, i.e., can't be seen of heard from such deliveries. And while the little super tweet is dead and gone this is the kind of air asset you would need in the COIN environment.

Snake

Quote:

The DIRCOM takes a lot of energy and I bet its more for a one-time shot in that kind of situation, not for defeating saturation attacks.

We're talking about COIN missions, not Word War III.

Quote:

My support again... would be for a Marine and even Army COIN focus in this capability, if required and not in a further increased, USAF COIN heavy doctrine, more so than is already planned for FY15 and beyond. IMHO.

Agreed. The USAF has the A-10A/C, which is still a good COIN platform. This new LAAR bird should be Army/Marines only. The only way I would want to expand the USAF's COIN capabilities is by making sure every A-10 gets the C upgrade and to expand the AC-130 (give some to the Marines while we're at it) fleet. I believe the Army and the Marines have more of a need for this aircraft (OV-10X) and can put it to better use than the Airforce.

I think we're chasing our tales with this COIN/LAAR subject, especially the OV-10X proposal. You'll have capabilities other offers just won't have. I'm tired of stating the Super Bronco's advantages and how it's just the better choice.

Hehe,

OK disco... fwiw, I'll vote to give you the last word on this LAAR subject so you can finally rest on it my friend. Too much chasing in circles, I concur. Wink

Last edited by discofishing on Feb 13, 2011 - 12:15 PM; edited 1 time in total

Lets start talking about missions this LAAR birds would actually fly.

Northern Mexico, for instance, is having a hell of a time with it's drug cartels. The violence has even spilled across the boarder onto our own soil. As much as it insults the Mexican government, they really do have an insurgency on their hands. It seems like they're almost helpless.

Hypothetical Situation:
So SOCOM decides to step in. After all, Americans are now dying at the hands of Mexican drug runners. Informants and deep cover agents get the fix on some high level cartel leaders. A task force is assembled, including the most fluent Spanish speakers from 7th and 20th Special Forces Groups and AFSOC. Mission: 12 operators (10 Green Berets, 1 PJ, 1 FAC) HALO jump from Super Broncos (4 troops per aircraft, 3 aircraft) at 25,000ft into the town of "Somethinez" in Northern Mexico to eliminate high ranking cartel members at 2300 Zulu on a moonless night. The enemy will be listening for the sound of helicopters, but won't hear the heavily armed, Special Forces laden OV-10s orbiting at high altitude (which would sound like typical air traffic).....

After the free-fall insertion, the Broncos stick around to provide communications rely, over watch, and close air support if needed. Upon eliminating the cartel members, the Special Forces A-Team high tails it to a near by highway (too small for C-130s) for extraction. That's when the 3 orbiting Broncos roll their throttles back to idle and drop out of orbit for a NVG assisted approach onto the highway; engines at a whisper and sounding like nothing more than the regular freight liner traffic passing by. Mexico is poor and can't maintain its roads well, but that's no problem for the rugged landing gear and well trained OV-10 pilots (Marines of VMO-1), whom effortlessly scoop up the operators and head back to their staging point across the boarder in Texas. The next day, the Mexican police find the bodies of 8 cartel lieutenants, attributing their deaths to rival factions. No trace of US involvement was ever identified.

deleted

discofishing wrote:

Lets start talking about missions this LAAR birds would actually fly

IMHO, 20-25 USMC Super tucanos or OV-10x's off an LHD/LHA. Fleet force protection, ASW, intra-fleet link in-case sats go down, Over The Horizon relay and of course... a rapid reaction amphib LAAR capable asset once on station (+500nm offshore). Or, C-5/C-17 rapid deployed (super tucano could probably be more easily air transported) to area of action requiring international COIN/LAAR intervention and support of international ground troops. imho.

God speed

Forum: Air Power

The USAF is seeking a COIN aircraft design