The Secretary of Defense, Mr. Donald Rumsfeld, dropped in at our FOB in Iraq on Saturday, and I got to ask him some questions. On the subject of the Key West Agreement — the one that splits the skies between the Army, Air Force, and Navy — Mr. Rumsfeld said that people in the Pentagon do not operate under “antiquated agreements.” So I guess that means the Key West Agreement is no longer in force. It’s open season for Army Aviation!
One glaring gap in Army aviation is in the light attack role, currently filled by the AH-64 Apache, designed in 1972. As aviation programs now take decades to develop, we need to start looking at the follow-on Apache replacement.
Apache ably fulfills its primary role, which is conducting anti-tank ambushes in the deep battle against enemy armor formations in approach march. However, it is doubtful if we will ever see a hostile enemy armor formations in an approach march situation in this century. The Army’s needs will be close air support, armed reconnaissance, and helicopter escort, which Apache does right now. However a fixed wing platform like the old OV-10 will be more efficient at these missions most of the time. In general, helicopters require more maintenance per flying hour than fixed wing aircrafts. On an engine thrust basis and fuel consumption basis, prop-driven fixed wing aircrafts are more efficient than helicopters in delivering payloads. For a given payload, a fixed wing aircraft is cheaper than a helicopter. With a stall speed of 55 mph, the OV-10 can take on the slower spectrum of helicopter missions. What helicopters give you is the ability to VTOL, which is not a requirement in the light attack mission set. In fact, the only reason the Army went into the attack helicopter game in the first place was because of the Key West Agreement.
An attack helicopter can operate from a very small forward arming and refueling point to increase sortie rate, but the Army does not use small FARPs very often. In a fast-maturing theater like Iraq, the FARPs rapidly evolve into full-on Army Airfields, rivaling the size of Third World air force bases. On the Army airfields, there is plenty of space for the 400-meter runway a light attack plane like OV-10 might need.
[Edited to add: My bad, FARPs don’t evolve into army airfields. The aviation brigade assembly areas become army airfields. However, the OV-10 can make the round trip to the airfield before an AH-64 comes back on station from a FARP.]
Army aviation’s experience in Iraq provides evidence supporting a prop-driven fixed wing platform. Apache crews trained to fire their weapons from a hovering position, reflecting the anti-tank ambush scenario. However, in the 360 degree security environment in Iraq, a hovering helicopter will quickly draw fire from hidden insurgents. Apache crews now use a shallow dive when they deliver their munitions to minimize exposure to ground fire. Since we’re not hovering to fire anymore, an OV-10 would do much better for our missions here.
I am not advocating the elimination of attack helicopters. The ARH will be very useful, and it will fill the missions where the light attack plane is not as optimal. And there are many situations where a Ka-50 may out-perform an OV-10. For the follow-on platform for the Apache, though, we should opt for a prop-driven fixed wing aircraft.
–Jimmy Wu
With the Air Force getting out of the ‘flying grunt’, eliminating a robust yet simple system like the A-10, perhaps this is a good thing.
It would be even better if those A-10 squadrons become Army squadrons. The existing fixed-wing tank killer for close air support.
Been a long time coming…
The A-10s have been around a long time, lots of cycles. Why not ask for a new version, w/the avionics updates to make them modern?
Or… maybe Pierre Sprey could come back and design a new version? That would rock!
wombat
Would a Close Air Support version of the V-22 fit the bill? Something with a chaingun or a Bushmaster, FFAR’s or similar, and a few Small Diameter Bombs or TOW’s. Kinda like a mini AC-130…
It’d be easier to deploy to forward areas than a Bronco or A-10 and could spend a longer time on-station than an Apache. Don’t know about it’s resistance to ground fire compared to an Apache, OV-10 or A-10.
I’m a big fan of jointness, but the Army will have to step up with its own gear if the Air Force continues to make combat air support a low priority in there procurement planning. The Key West Agreement’s slow death is further proof that the R&D and procurement worlds remain relatively untouched by the ’87 Goldwater-Nichols Act.
It would probably be pretty cheap for the Army and Marines to field a big, slow-moving turboprop capable of carrying a hefty payload. Most proven low-speed airframe designs and prop engines have been refined for decades, so it wouldn’t take long to design either (especially since neither would be interested in envelope-pushing stealth technologies).
Heck, it probably wouldn’t be hard to turn a combat air support concept into a UAV — which would cut down on the aircraft’s overall weight, freeing up more payload capacity.
A prop-driven, fixed-wing light attack aircraft?
Aren’t armed UAV’s, such as Predator B, already
moving into that role?
Good Evening Folks,
Just to understand things, was not the OV-10 Bronco a Marine aircraft that was primarly used in Artillery sporing and ATC missions. As a Light Attack, I think not. If I remember it had a two man crew and wasused up and into Gulf War I where an OV-10 was shot down.
The question of manned light attack in support of ground troops, why?
With armed (Hellfire)UAV’s for spotting and the occasional get lucky shot, why would ground elements want to call in light attack strikes. The Air Force with it AC-130, F-15’s, F-16’s and A-10’s if anything are redundant for the ground support mission.
ALLONS,
Byron Skinner
I advocated something like the OV-10 because:
The Army always needs its own air corps because the Air Force is more worried about air superiority and battlefield interdiction than it is on close air support and artillery spotting.
UAVs’ sensor technology still cannot match the Mk I mod 0 eyeball in terms of peripheral vision and change detection, etc. When the sensors can exceed human vision, then I’ll take the UAV.
A-10 is not optimal. It is a jet, which means it is too fast, too much maintenance, and burns too much gas. Its armor is nice, but we just don’t need something that fast. Plus, the A-10 seats only one, whereas 2 sets of eyeballs are always better than 1. A-10 is in the heavy attack class, carrying up to 7.2 tons, whereas OV-10 and AH-64 are in the light attack class, of up to 3 tons.
AH-64 also burns too much gas and too much maintenance, as I said.
Byron, if we were to bring back the OV-10, we will increase its armor. However, the cheapness of the airframe ($480k in 1970) means we can replace the aircraft even if it’s shot down. By comparison, AH-64D is now $56m+. Pilots wearing interceptor body armor will be safe in the current air defense environment. A low-flying aircraft like the OV-10 is not worried about SAMs.
And Byron, according to your argument on light attack, why do we even have the AH-64? The Air Force can do it all, right?
Bring back the A-1 Skyraider. That plane could take a lot of punishment, it’s low tech, had a big air cooled radial engine, can carrry 10,000 pounds of ordnance, and can fly slow and low. Perfect aircraft for COIN and CAS.
Asking for the newer/better is warranted of course but let’s formulize the org chart with current people (aka weapon platforms) before enhancing the people (aka weapon platforms). No good in creating a better platform is the Air Force is simply going to say ‘this thing is cool, let’s keep it for ourselves’.
The OV-10 would be mean refielding an older technology, along with redefining command & control, while the A-10 would mean redefining the command & control only.
Good Morning Jimmy,
I agree with you on the price of aircraft and I have no doubts that if a Platoon get into trouble such as the 2nd. Plt., of C Troop 3/7 Cav., 3ID did during the invasion phase of the Iraqi War there would be serious thought about bringing $100Million+ Fighter Bombers below 10K Ft. to help them out. As with this Platoon they would have to fight their way out with what they had organic to their unit.
The Apachie after the Fasco at the Karabala Gap by the 11th. Avn. Reg. put use of the AH-64 or any future AH’s as aforward strike aircraft in serious doubt. The bad guys have ther number.
I believe that Army Doctrine is deveolping into the first 2k Meters of battle space will belong to direct and indirect groung fire. Maybe the AH-64’s if Heavy Armor is involved, but they will engage from behind the American lines.
After 2K Meters it will be the Job of the Air Force and Navy Carrier based aircraft to handle the problems from 10K Ft. and above. Now way do I see the Pentagon willing expose $100Million plus value airframes to RPG’s or pther shoulder fired AAA weapons that will develope.
The FO, ATC, and Recon. task is already almost exclusivity the job of UCAV’s now.
ALLONS,
Byron Skinner
What about turboprop trainers (T-6B Texan II,PC-9).
Smaller target,greater range and loitering time,available now.Characteristics are almost ideal. Already used in Afrika by some private forces in the same role.Reported as far superior then M24 Hind in this role.
An accidental click, RF brilliant figures, elegant scenery was leap forward in my eye. RF rich content let me full of boundless curiosity to her. And thus I began to search the RF information include RF gold.
I think for you it is easy, do not have enough fiesta Gold, the game screen was clear and concise, in the game the monster were very lovely
in the game if you have enough fiesta money, you can get the comfortable life
but we often have a same topic, that is how to buy fiesta Gold, every time we were very happy.
I’m a big fan of jointness, but the Army will have to step up with its own gear if the Air Force continues to make combat air support a low priority in there procurement planning. The Key West Agreement’s tiffany slow death is further proof that the R&D and procurement worlds remain relatively untouched by the ’87 Goldwater-Nichols Act.