As long as we staid inside their OODA Loop!
Steve
Steve
Lavender Room
Login required to started new threads
Login required to post replies
Re: USSOC Light Attack Aircraft [windywave]
[ In reply to ]
Re: USSOC Light Attack Aircraft [spot]
[ In reply to ]
The specific capabilities SOF desires are gonna be classified. What does elite SOF mean by "armed overwatch?" Well we already have that with armed MQ-9s that are resident within that community. They already have CAS in terms of Little Birds, DAPs--and some systems that are out there in the wild but still technically classified so i won't name them.
These type SOF forces go into objective areas relying upon surprise; violence of action; and expertise at a small unit level. They don't have a lot of resident firepower within their organizations. Spot knows all this. So when they need firepower they get it from the Night Stalkers; their own armed UAVs; a few niche unnamed systems; or conventional forces tasked to worked with them.
It will be interesting to see where this goes
Steve
These type SOF forces go into objective areas relying upon surprise; violence of action; and expertise at a small unit level. They don't have a lot of resident firepower within their organizations. Spot knows all this. So when they need firepower they get it from the Night Stalkers; their own armed UAVs; a few niche unnamed systems; or conventional forces tasked to worked with them.
It will be interesting to see where this goes
Steve
Re: USSOC Light Attack Aircraft [gregtryin]
[ In reply to ]
If you like the Tucson, look at the PC-21. Closest thing I’ve seen to a modern Mustang. In fact, it’s more like the Yak 3 to the Tucano’s Mustang. Lighter, and same KW out of the PT6. If they were available on the civilian market, I’d start playing the lotto
Re: USSOC Light Attack Aircraft [Steve Hawley]
[ In reply to ]
Steve Hawley wrote:
The specific capabilities SOF desires are gonna be classified. What does elite SOF mean by "armed overwatch?" Well we already have that with armed MQ-9s that are resident within that community. They already have CAS in terms of Little Birds, DAPs--and some systems that are out there in the wild but still technically classified so i won't name them. These type SOF forces go into objective areas relying upon surprise; violence of action; and expertise at a small unit level. They don't have a lot of resident firepower within their organizations. Spot knows all this. So when they need firepower they get it from the Night Stalkers; their own armed UAVs; a few niche unnamed systems; or conventional forces tasked to worked with them.
It will be interesting to see where this goes
Yeah, agreed. I think you nailed it when you asked...what exactly is "armed overwatch," and is a completely new platform the right answer? Maybe it is, but I think a lot of folks get fixated on the cost per flight hour, and lose track of the ginormous logistics tail that follows any unique weapons system. Spare parts, trained maintainers, aircrew, etc...all have to come from somewhere, and they all cost money.
___________________________________________________
Taco cat spelled backwards is....taco cat.
Re: USSOC Light Attack Aircraft [Steve Hawley]
[ In reply to ]
I'm kind of surprised nobody has brought up the Army's new artillery initiatives and how that could shape the battlefield of the future.
https://www.military.com/...-moving-targets.html
https://www.defensenews.com/...eme-range-artillery/
The technologies are not mutually exclusive. There are proposals on the table that would extend artillery ranges even further to 300 kilometers. In a theater like Afghanistan you can cover damn near the entire country from surprisingly few FOBs when you have that sort of range. At the extreme end of that range a projectile traveling at Mach 6 would hit its target in 2.5 minutes from the time it is fired.
https://www.military.com/...-moving-targets.html
Quote:
Raytheon Co. just announced that its new laser-guided Excalibur S 155mm artillery round scored direct hits on a moving target in a secret, live-fire test for the Marine Corps last spring. The Excalibur is a combat-proven, precision artillery round capable of hitting within a few feet of a target at ranges out to 40 kilometershttps://www.defensenews.com/...eme-range-artillery/
Quote:
Norwegian ammunition company Nammo has rolled out what it’s calling an “extreme range” artillery concept using ramjet propulsion that it hopes will meet the emerging long-range precision fires requirements for a variety of countries, including the United States. Nammo has combined its experience in both ammunition and rocket-propulsion technology, and it’s merging those capabilities to create an artillery shell capable of reaching more than 100 kilometers in range without changing the gun on a standard 155mm howitzerThe technologies are not mutually exclusive. There are proposals on the table that would extend artillery ranges even further to 300 kilometers. In a theater like Afghanistan you can cover damn near the entire country from surprisingly few FOBs when you have that sort of range. At the extreme end of that range a projectile traveling at Mach 6 would hit its target in 2.5 minutes from the time it is fired.
Re: USSOC Light Attack Aircraft [spot]
[ In reply to ]
spot wrote:
The notion that this fell apart because of some conspiracy in the USAF is laughable.Marine air seemed to love to work with us Marines on the ground. We worked together a lot so the whole air-ground effort became like putting on an old comfortable shoe. In the Army tho, getting the AF to come play on exercises was like pulling teeth. They were always finding reasons why they couldn't participate. We kinda got the impression that the AF's interest in ground attack pretty much came to a halt once they got their funding dollars. My sense was that the AF was trying to figure out how little they could emphasize ground attack, while still hanging on the role so the Army couldn't seize it.
During Iraq1, once the ground war started, the AF kept their ground attack planes above 10,000 feet. There was no way they were going to ID targets on the ground at that altitude with no geographical references, no GPS, and no laser designators, and smart bombs. We just told them to stay away from us completely. The most perfect opportunity for "Close Air", flat terrain and no vegetation, and the ground troops and air were so foreign to each other, and the ground attack guidance so restrictive, that Close Air was shut down.
How many times did the AF try to kill the A10? My recollection is that, at least once, the AF was forced to keep it by Congress. How many times did the AF not bother to put more powerful engines and later generation avionics into it?
In the 90's I was asking AF ground attack pilots how the hell they were going to knock out an enemy tank with a dumb bomb while traveling at 300kts. They just shrugged their shoulders.
So sure, there isn't an AF conspiracy. But lots of cultural dislike can have the same result.
Books @ Amazon
"If only he had used his genius for niceness, instead of Evil." M. Smart
Re: USSOC Light Attack Aircraft [RangerGress]
[ In reply to ]
RangerGress wrote:
spot wrote:
The notion that this fell apart because of some conspiracy in the USAF is laughable.
I was a Marine from '82-88 and then Army 88-98. During the Army stint, I also spent time with AF Ground Attack units as their "Ground Liaison Officer" (GLO) during their exercises. I don't know much about flying attack planes, but I do have some handle on what the ground guys think of air support.
Marine air seemed to love to work with us Marines on the ground. We worked together a lot so the whole air-ground effort became like putting on an old comfortable shoe. In the Army tho, getting the AF to come play on exercises was like pulling teeth. They were always finding reasons why they couldn't participate. We kinda got the impression that the AF's interest in ground attack pretty much came to a halt once they got their funding dollars. My sense was that the AF was trying to figure out how little they could emphasize ground attack, while still hanging on the role so the Army couldn't seize it.
During Iraq1, once the ground war started, the AF kept their ground attack planes above 10,000 feet. There was no way they were going to ID targets on the ground at that altitude with no geographical references, no GPS, and no laser designators, and smart bombs. We just told them to stay away from us completely. The most perfect opportunity for "Close Air", flat terrain and no vegetation, and the ground troops and air were so foreign to each other, and the ground attack guidance so restrictive, that Close Air was shut down.
How many times did the AF try to kill the A10? My recollection is that, at least once, the AF was forced to keep it by Congress. How many times did the AF not bother to put more powerful engines and later generation avionics into it?
In the 90's I was asking AF ground attack pilots how the hell they were going to knock out an enemy tank with a dumb bomb while traveling at 300kts. They just shrugged their shoulders.
So sure, there isn't an AF conspiracy. But lots of cultural dislike can have the same result.
So I'm not sure what your experience was in Iraq I, but the USAF had laser designators and smart bombs and missiles. In fact, A-10s did a LOT of very good work with AGM-65 Mavericks missiles (imaging infrared seekers) and F-111s with GBU-12 LGBs and PAVE TACK pods plinked Iraqi tanks until they had killed hundreds.
My main point about a conspiracy, though, was about a particular aircraft, which had zero potential as a CAS aircraft.
___________________________________________________
Taco cat spelled backwards is....taco cat.
Re: USSOC Light Attack Aircraft [spot]
[ In reply to ]
You might be talking the early weeks of the war. I'm talking the ground war. Bn ALO's don't call F111's, that's deep strike stuff.
It was less about hitting what you were aiming at then it was about identifying the target. Not being able to hit the target isn't so much a crisis for the guys on the ground. That just makes the air ineffectual. But the fast mover not being able to ID good guys from bad guys is frightening.
My recollection is that by the time the ground war started, the AF had burned thru it's smart bomb bits that they were bolting on to their conventional bombs. That left them with dumb bombs and Mavericks. Sure, a Mav can hit the target that's designated, but that doesn't help if the guy tagging the target is loitering at 15,000 feet and can't see squat from 3 miles away. Due to the lower technology of the day, the only way for a target to be properly designated in that environment was for the ground forces to designate the target. "Properly" means "we are certain it's a bad guy." The ability of the folks on the ground to do that was crap, and what practice we did have was with Army rotary wing, not AF fast movers. In an Infantry Bn, the guys that could tag a target with a laser were in each company's fire support track (FIST). But 99.9% of the time they were using their laser for range, not for designating. By "practice," I mean communication and coordination, not hitting a laser button. The FIST track had no ability to communicate that info to AF types, not via data nor even simply voice. Only the ALO could talk to fast movers. Bde certainly had an ALO. Bn sometimes had an ALO.
The whole system was completely unpracticed. In contrast, the Marines would come right down on the deck to ID friendlies. That would give them the enough info re. the geometry of the battlefield that they could then pound the bad guys all day long. The Marines practiced ground attack, the AF and Army didn't.
Books @ Amazon
"If only he had used his genius for niceness, instead of Evil." M. Smart
It was less about hitting what you were aiming at then it was about identifying the target. Not being able to hit the target isn't so much a crisis for the guys on the ground. That just makes the air ineffectual. But the fast mover not being able to ID good guys from bad guys is frightening.
My recollection is that by the time the ground war started, the AF had burned thru it's smart bomb bits that they were bolting on to their conventional bombs. That left them with dumb bombs and Mavericks. Sure, a Mav can hit the target that's designated, but that doesn't help if the guy tagging the target is loitering at 15,000 feet and can't see squat from 3 miles away. Due to the lower technology of the day, the only way for a target to be properly designated in that environment was for the ground forces to designate the target. "Properly" means "we are certain it's a bad guy." The ability of the folks on the ground to do that was crap, and what practice we did have was with Army rotary wing, not AF fast movers. In an Infantry Bn, the guys that could tag a target with a laser were in each company's fire support track (FIST). But 99.9% of the time they were using their laser for range, not for designating. By "practice," I mean communication and coordination, not hitting a laser button. The FIST track had no ability to communicate that info to AF types, not via data nor even simply voice. Only the ALO could talk to fast movers. Bde certainly had an ALO. Bn sometimes had an ALO.
The whole system was completely unpracticed. In contrast, the Marines would come right down on the deck to ID friendlies. That would give them the enough info re. the geometry of the battlefield that they could then pound the bad guys all day long. The Marines practiced ground attack, the AF and Army didn't.
Books @ Amazon
"If only he had used his genius for niceness, instead of Evil." M. Smart
Re: USSOC Light Attack Aircraft [RangerGress]
[ In reply to ]
First...I completely appreciate your viewpoint and experience...really not trying to dispute what you're saying, just some clarifying remarks. For the record, I was the 3rd Ranger Battalion ALO from 94-96, and did TIC CAS in OIF from a B-1 (Objective FLOYD).
The IIR AGM-65s that the A-10s carried didn't require a designation...they locked onto the target on the rail and then guided themselves to the target. Those were available during the entire war, to the best of my knowledge.
But I get what you're saying regarding talk ons, target ID, and designations; those do take practice and training.
___________________________________________________
Taco cat spelled backwards is....taco cat.
The IIR AGM-65s that the A-10s carried didn't require a designation...they locked onto the target on the rail and then guided themselves to the target. Those were available during the entire war, to the best of my knowledge.
But I get what you're saying regarding talk ons, target ID, and designations; those do take practice and training.
___________________________________________________
Taco cat spelled backwards is....taco cat.
Re: USSOC Light Attack Aircraft [trail]
[ In reply to ]
Why can't they used an up armed OV 10? Watching a show on it, and the plane seems perfect
Re: USSOC Light Attack Aircraft [windywave]
[ In reply to ]
OV-10's would have been an option, back in the 1980's. But the USAF got rid of them then, and you'd have to crank up a program from scratch.
They could use MQ-9's. More sensors and more ordnance than anything they're looking at, and an existing production/maintenance/supply/training infrastructure.
For whatever reason, putting a pilot in a slow, limited surveillance capability, limited ordinance capability airplane that we'd need to build everything from scratch seems to be the desired solution.
"Human existence is based upon two pillars: Compassion and knowledge. Compassion without knowledge is ineffective; Knowledge without compassion is inhuman." Victor Weisskopf.
They could use MQ-9's. More sensors and more ordnance than anything they're looking at, and an existing production/maintenance/supply/training infrastructure.
For whatever reason, putting a pilot in a slow, limited surveillance capability, limited ordinance capability airplane that we'd need to build everything from scratch seems to be the desired solution.
"Human existence is based upon two pillars: Compassion and knowledge. Compassion without knowledge is ineffective; Knowledge without compassion is inhuman." Victor Weisskopf.
Re: USSOC Light Attack Aircraft [Alvin Tostig]
[ In reply to ]
Alvin Tostig wrote:
OV-10's would have been an option, back in the 1980's. But the USAF got rid of them then, and you'd have to crank up a program from scratch. They could use MQ-9's. More sensors and more ordnance than anything they're looking at, and an existing production/maintenance/supply/training infrastructure.
For whatever reason, putting a pilot in a slow, limited surveillance capability, limited ordinance capability airplane that we'd need to build everything from scratch seems to be the desired solution.
According to the show I'm watching we're flying them Afghanistan
Re: USSOC Light Attack Aircraft [windywave]
[ In reply to ]
windywave wrote:
Alvin Tostig wrote:
OV-10's would have been an option, back in the 1980's. But the USAF got rid of them then, and you'd have to crank up a program from scratch. They could use MQ-9's. More sensors and more ordnance than anything they're looking at, and an existing production/maintenance/supply/training infrastructure.
For whatever reason, putting a pilot in a slow, limited surveillance capability, limited ordinance capability airplane that we'd need to build everything from scratch seems to be the desired solution.
According to the show I'm watching we're flying them Afghanistan
And when your 170-knot OV-10 gets shot down by small arms fire, you've got one (or sometimes two) aircrew either killed or needing to be rescued. When an MQ-9 gets shot down, you just check out another one from supply and press on.
"Human existence is based upon two pillars: Compassion and knowledge. Compassion without knowledge is ineffective; Knowledge without compassion is inhuman." Victor Weisskopf.
Re: USSOC Light Attack Aircraft [Alvin Tostig]
[ In reply to ]
Re: USSOC Light Attack Aircraft [Grahamsc]
[ In reply to ]
What would it cost to test, evaluate, and then buy a useful inventory of these? Then, how much more will it cost to crank up a supply/maintenance/training program to get started using this new system and to keep using it in the future?
You'll have a sophisticated (and expensive) bugsmasher that would have a limited capability to survive even if the only threat is small arms fire. It's questionable why ground special forces would need more than a Cessna 180 in that kind of environment.
"Human existence is based upon two pillars: Compassion and knowledge. Compassion without knowledge is ineffective; Knowledge without compassion is inhuman." Victor Weisskopf.
You'll have a sophisticated (and expensive) bugsmasher that would have a limited capability to survive even if the only threat is small arms fire. It's questionable why ground special forces would need more than a Cessna 180 in that kind of environment.
"Human existence is based upon two pillars: Compassion and knowledge. Compassion without knowledge is ineffective; Knowledge without compassion is inhuman." Victor Weisskopf.
Re: USSOC Light Attack Aircraft [Alvin Tostig]
[ In reply to ]
Alvin,
A close friend owns that company. They were selling them like hotcakes to our Allies fighting the badguys over in the sandbox. I seem to recall all in they could sell about 8-10 for the cost of 1 F-18, F4, F16. I've toured the plant and have sat in the cockpit. I was pretty amazed that it only took 240hrs total flight training to be combat effective from someone with zero flight experience. They can rig out different missions but it had a 10hr flight time for their recon model which is pretty freakin incredible considering a 150gal gas tank. Which is better than my 90hp 4stroke boat engine. Of course there's a lot of competition in these type of planes. Basically a weaponized crop duster but seems to be in high demand and a perfect aircraft for close air support with modified or FAB improved strips.
A close friend owns that company. They were selling them like hotcakes to our Allies fighting the badguys over in the sandbox. I seem to recall all in they could sell about 8-10 for the cost of 1 F-18, F4, F16. I've toured the plant and have sat in the cockpit. I was pretty amazed that it only took 240hrs total flight training to be combat effective from someone with zero flight experience. They can rig out different missions but it had a 10hr flight time for their recon model which is pretty freakin incredible considering a 150gal gas tank. Which is better than my 90hp 4stroke boat engine. Of course there's a lot of competition in these type of planes. Basically a weaponized crop duster but seems to be in high demand and a perfect aircraft for close air support with modified or FAB improved strips.
Your crop duster on steroids would be a step above what the USAF is planning to do.
The Air Force is moving ahead with contracts for both finalists involved in its exploration of light-attack aircraft, issuing awards to both Textron’s AT-6 and Sierra Nevada Corp.’s A-29 over the past few weeks.
Textron announced March 16 it will use $70.2 million from the Air Force to provide two AT-6 Wolverines
Sierra Nevada also said March 3 it received a preliminary contract for the A-29 Super Tucano and related services to support Air Force Special Operations Command’s foreign advisory mission. The company earned an award worth up to approximately $129 million for two aircraft
https://www.airforcemag.com/usaf-issues-seed-money-for-four-light-attack-aircraft/
"Human existence is based upon two pillars: Compassion and knowledge. Compassion without knowledge is ineffective; Knowledge without compassion is inhuman." Victor Weisskopf.
The Air Force is moving ahead with contracts for both finalists involved in its exploration of light-attack aircraft, issuing awards to both Textron’s AT-6 and Sierra Nevada Corp.’s A-29 over the past few weeks.
Textron announced March 16 it will use $70.2 million from the Air Force to provide two AT-6 Wolverines
Sierra Nevada also said March 3 it received a preliminary contract for the A-29 Super Tucano and related services to support Air Force Special Operations Command’s foreign advisory mission. The company earned an award worth up to approximately $129 million for two aircraft
https://www.airforcemag.com/usaf-issues-seed-money-for-four-light-attack-aircraft/
"Human existence is based upon two pillars: Compassion and knowledge. Compassion without knowledge is ineffective; Knowledge without compassion is inhuman." Victor Weisskopf.