Forum: Air Power

Salute!

TNX, fisker.

Should've taken time to research all the stuff, but finding the SON and ROC is still a bear, and had a landline connect until 4 days ago that provided a blazing 24K bits/sec, heh heh..

Usually, an RFP is put out there and a company or two or three will submit a design to meet the requirements and such.

Recall that the LWF program did not specify number of motors, turn rate, acceleration, etc.

Hell, the A-37 could carry more than what the proposal states, orbit 15 - 20,000 on one motor, etc. 30K implies a pressurized cockpit ( add weight and complexity). Modern ejection seats? No problem. Turbo-props? Beam me up!!! The 30K requirement will be hard. A stripped Warthog with only 6 stations and updated avionics would meet the requirement except for the backseater. Oh yeah, a backseater? And what kinda gun? Can't use a gun at 30K. and the beat goes on.

I am confused.

Gums sends....

F-16.net Sponsor

So which is more doable for COIN, F-16A ADF (with MLU) or F-16C Block 25 (with some other upgrade)?

As pointed out by someone from another forum:

Heres a quote from Commander Ade Orchards, (and James Barringtons) book; Joint Force Harrier, him comparing the GR9 and the A-10: Pages 228-229;

"In the new Harrier GR9 the Fleet Air Arm is flying what is arguably the best Close Air Support platform in the world. Previously it was second only to the A-10, and now it's on par with the famous (and bloody ugly) Warthog, because we now have the helmet-mounted cueing system. Harrier pilots can look out of the window at a target and instead of having point a sensor at it, we can just click a button on the throttle. This enters the target we're looking at directly into the weapon system. It makes a huge difference. The speed at which Joint Force Harrier is now able to bring weapons to bear on a target is staggering.

The aircraft is also getting an upgrade of its self-defence suite-real state of the art stuff. And to be introduced before long are a data link system using Link 16-by allowing different assets to share information, this ensures more effective cooperation-and a short-range data link for communicating with troops on the ground. From that point on, I don't believe there will be a more capable CAS platform than the Harrier anywhere in the world.

It's also worth saying that while the A-10 is an awesome piece of machinery, it does have one significant disadvantage in that it is so slow (as well as ugly). It can only only travel at about 240 knots with all it's gear on. That's slower than a Second World War Spitfire. At full chat the Harrier can get to the scene of the action at over 500 knots. Or, put another way, in half the time. That difference could be crucial."

Is there any reason they couldn't cram this kind of system into smaller COIN aircraft?

Salute!

Mad brings up a neat bit of technology we didn't have back in my previous life.

Original computer-assisted systems required you to have the tgt within the field of view of the HUD. Could point at the tgt or slew the tgt designator symbol, then follow steering cues.

So today's helmet cueing capability is easy to implement, and cheap. If the smart bomb gets the tgt location and has the off-boresight aero capability, we can drop very accurately without GPS assistance, just basic strapdown inertial chips in the bomb or rocket.

I disagree about the "speed" argument that the Brit mentions. The Sluf could get to a survivor and mark his position lots faster than the A-1 that we replaced (combat SAR back in 1972). But when it came time to escort the Jolleys and turn tight over the survivor location we were not half as good as the A-1. Same applies to using a Viper. Turn radius and rate is much better if you can pull 3 or 4 gees at 200 knots than 5 or 6 gees at 500 knots. Go work the math.

I would take a "smart" Warthog any day over a Harrier for a knife fight in a telephone booth.

The idea of a very light, flimsy plane for COIN or CAS or CSAR doesn't make sense to me. I flew both high speed and slow speed planes in actual combat in the COIN/CSAR role. And I want a platform that can take some hits from ack and maybe even a Stinger-type SAM. The sucker should also be "basic" with respect to maintenance and servicing in an austere operational environment.

neat thread......

Gums sends....

madrat wrote:

As pointed out by someone from another forum:

Heres a quote from Commander Ade Orchards, (and James Barringtons) book; Joint Force Harrier, him comparing the GR9 and the A-10: Pages 228-229;

<snip>
It's also worth saying that while the A-10 is an awesome piece of machinery, it does have one significant disadvantage in that it is so slow (as well as ugly). It can only only travel at about 240 knots with all it's gear on. That's slower than a Second World War Spitfire. At full chat the Harrier can get to the scene of the action at over 500 knots. Or, put another way, in half the time. That difference could be crucial."

Is there any reason they couldn't cram this kind of system into smaller COIN aircraft?

I'm wondering what the loiter time would be for a Harrier after a full chat run? Won't do much good to get there if you only have time for one pass?
fisk

Salute!

Well, fisker-breath, you have nailed it.

In the NBA we Yanks ( for you who are not USA folks) call it "hang time".

The SLUF had great loiter time for a jet, but not as good as the A-1, which we replaced in the CSAR mission in late 1972. Nevertheless, we had super hang time compared with the Double Ugly or Sabre or ....

I can't do much to help the grunts if I get there real quick but have to leave 10 minutes later.

The so-called requirements I have seen do not specify the actual mission a COIN aircraft or drone has to accomplish. Two turboprops? Huh? Only a coupla 500 pound eggs? 30,000 feet requirement? Two seats?

I wanna see the SON and the ROC ( go look up what they stand for before jumping on to other crapola).

I look at what's already on the table and fear developing a new plane due to costs and such. I also unnerstan that old airframes are, well, old! On the other side of the coin, I see very cheap avionics that can be integrated to existing platforms to provide cosmic capabilities. Trust me on this. I helped design systems for the U.S. Marine Super Cobra, the AH-64, the RAH-66 aborted helo, the A-10, F-16, F-18 and the beat goes on.

While I am not a pinball wizard promoter, there are some places to use advanced avionics versus entirely new airframes AND cosmic avionics ( see F-35).

All I know is that I flew the mission in real life and know what I would like to fly if I had to do it again with modern avionics. Road recce, convoy cover, CAS, helo escort, CSAR pick-ups, etc. If any of you have flown that kinda mission and got shot at, PLZ post here. Any takers?

The drones are neat when time is on your side. Cruise around, look, track, identify, confirm, get clearance, then fire a Hellfire. I luv it.

OTOH, when the patrol is in deep sh*t and need help right now, then I want to have something that can hit right now! A gun is neat, and precision bombs/rockets are nice. main thing is operational flexibilty and an autonomous capability that does not depend on ground designators or satellites or...... Point and shoot/drop.

later,

Gums sends....

Guys
I gone back over the majority of inputs to this thread including the AF's operational requirements offered by Fisker and find hestiation (notice I don't say faults) in a number of them. First I always like to listen to the guys who have been there and done that and then take that counsel to evaluate what requirements have merit and which ones are someones wet dream --- including the Air Force's so called requirements. So lets go from there with some very simple facts:

1. Bringing a new weapons system on board in todays economy is a total pipe dream without any possibility of seeing it in action in the forseeable future. So thereforre if the powers that are, are serious about a dedicated COIN fighter they are going to with what they have.

2. Whatever aircraft they choose Will have to have the operational capability to operate on a worldwide basis from the low desert areas to the high moiuntains of Afganistan. To think a Turbo Prop meets the demands of both carrying and delivering from 30k and then maneuver in that thin air to avoid Triple A or hand held SAM's lacks a large degree of credability.

3. If the newly proposed COIN aircraft is going out to support troops the requirement for two bombs and a gun has got to have been proposed by someone who has never been there, or done that. Once in the target area and the enemy spots the delivery aircraft all he has to do is hunker down and wait. However, imagine if you will a flight of four A-10's or A-7's arrive on station with all pylons loaded. More then once both Gums and I have responded to either a CAS or TIC with six stations each or 12 total where the enemy either faded away or didn't get home to supper.

4. Married closely, and an integrial part of 3 is to have the loiter time to be really effective. To sit up there and let your controller really lock onto the greatest threat and then you take that threat out with one bomb. And if the enemy wants to play cat and mouse and hunker down until we go away the flight lead could cycle elements on and off a tanker and play their waiting game all day or until our troops are safe. So anything less then 30 minutes loiter time MINIMUM ain't going to be that helpful if the enemy has any kind of smarts --- AND HE DOES!!!!!!

5. Anything else is a load of BS!!!!!

Snake

So what sort of requirements does an A-10C NOT meet?

On Target, Snake.
The thread had wandered all over the place and I hoped that posting USAF's requirements would clear some smoke.

As always, "ask the man who owns one" is the most helpful info that anyone can get. Unfortunately for our decision makers, they rarely take this route.
fisk

So would something like an F-35B - or an updated Sluf for that matter - be ideal for initial TIC/CSAR followed up by slow movers (like the A-10)? At least would they be a better solution than a one size fits all approach?

Seems like if it was then it forms the basis for a good argument where the USAF operates fast movers for first response and the Army flies their own CAS platforms to escort in their helicopters for drop offs/pick ups. The USAF is responsible for the first 20-25 minutes and the Army takes over from there. COIN on the other hand seems to be pointed at a much lighter airframe, something like the A-37 which can be serviced out in the field if necessary.

Rat
An updated SLUF has more of a possibility then a 35 at this juncture probaly because it is unproven and very costly.

Second the lines of operational responsibility were finalized years ago that put fix air ops in the hands of the Air Force while the army could and does use Helo's very effectively. With everything else on their plates at this times I doubt very much that that would be a serious topic of corcern.

Snake

Salute!

In all good spirits, mad, you have it backwards.

+++++++++++ Grunts hold the fort until air arrives.+++++++

A typical COIN mission ( it there's such a thing) may involve convoy cover or CAS or even interdiction of a supply facility, a bunker, etc. Then there's CSAR to scarf up a few snake-eaters or downed pilot.

In Laos, we were used as mobile artillery, as friendly arty was non-existent. This was mostly at Lima sites, but occasionally we supported SOG recce teams in both the CAS role and CSAR.

Most of the strange places we'll play the COIN game don't have their own helos or even good arty. So the planes rule.

As much as I loved both the A-37 and SLUF, the 'hog has some neat features for maintainability. Those high motors really help with FOD, and they are not right next to each other where a single SAM can get both. The avionics compartments are fairly accessible, and large! The motors are not something new, so the guys like TEG won't have to learn to invent the wheel once again. And the gear is rugged, allowing for operation from crude locations.

The USAF has to regroup and get back to basics on this issue, and go get some folks that have the missions and can offer credible experience to the discussion.

Reminds me of McNamara's F-111 testimony before the Senate one day when a Senator asked him,
"Just what, if any, experience does the Secretary have in these matters?.

Gums sends...

Rat
In addition to my comments just above, I believe the Marine version of the F-35 has the vertical takeoff and landing capability both of which burn up alot more fuel than a normal fixed wing approach and landing. If so, that's going to cut into the loiter time by quite a bit.

Snake

On the subject of the players in the competition, Boeing announced that they will proceed with the OV-10X, even if the USAF should decide that they are no longer interested in a new COIN aircraft. This will be interesting to see. A new Bronco airframe, with avionics on par with the Super Bug or Charlie model Warthog, new ejection seats, and new ordnance which it can carry.

Let me reiterate: Boeing is NOT pulling the old A models out of the Boneyard and retrofitting them. These will be completely new birds, fresh off of the assembly line. Several foreign countries have already expressed their interest, and it is based off of this interest that Boeing is going ahead with the project. As for the AF? I don't know if they will take a bite...at least yet. They still have some other new equipment to buy, which should take precedence, but that's a completely different can of worms that I don't want to open.

Salute!

Good points, TC.

BTW, we need to move that A-16 thread over on the main forum to here, as it is getting very philosophical regarding missions and weapon systems.

Gums sends....

P.S. I like that Bronco. Only trouble with it is that it can't carry a lot. It meets the USAF concept for something small that can only carry 2 x 500 pounders, has the turboprops, two seats, etc. but that's it. For low intensity ops it's a good plane for FAC and recce missions. But when that friendly convoy comes under attack it can't do much until the "big boys' get there to help the grunts.

Forum: Air Power

The USAF is seeking a COIN aircraft design