Comments on: Could the COIN Plane Have Saved Lives?

By: SGT Heavy Gilstrap

SGT Heavy Gilstrap — Sat, 17 Oct 2009 06:05:56 +0000

A thought from an ole USAF Wpns viet vet. After someone has been boring holes in the wild blue for 5 hours, are they as sharp as after just a couple, no matter which single seat? Stop pushing the limits. When I make the run to San Antonio, I stop several times and its only 4 hours. True, I’m not 20 something, but then lets use common sense and wisdom. 2 birds per area, and rotate. My God guys, we’re not launching a mars shot!!!

By: Clyde

Clyde — Tue, 29 Sep 2009 20:42:11 +0000

But Remember this: we're fighting an enemy that hasn't an aircraft. Using air power to counter their iniative is one answer, but not the only answer. It is, however, the expensive answer, and that plays right into attrition-the more it costs, the sooner we'll quit. Seriously, a Folker Triplane might work best, simply because they are low maintainance, need little run way, and are cheap enough to deploy a few with every company of grunts. When we go high-tech, we run the crap out of a few aircraft, especailly as current doctrine is to spread out and hold for a long time, and whatever the F-20 or F-22 or F-33&1/3 capabilites, most won't be used and it will all have to be maintained in a major facility, for along time. In WW1 adn WW2, the war itself convinced the defeated that it was time to quit. But, with all our high-tech, we haven't yet convinced a bunch of rag muffions with small arms and pick up trucks to quit, and we've been at it twice as long. We have to get close, personal, and hug them all over, all at once, for along, long time, and that takes a lot of cheap, Soviet thinking in regards to hardwear. I wasn't serious about the Folker, but tell me, what a few crop dusters with 30 cals and a couple rockets, each, could do, if they were always close at hand, and what would they have to contend with from the enemy?

By: duuuuuuude

duuuuuuude — Fri, 25 Sep 2009 15:39:57 +0000

A combination of long-loiter AC-47 gunships, OV-10 Broncos, A-1 Skyraiders and attack helicopters would be enough to provide accurate close air support for counter-insurgency.

By: longrifle

longrifle — Fri, 25 Sep 2009 13:41:23 +0000

We need a carrot-stick approach in Afghanistan. The carrot is the Taliban lay down their arms and join the rest of their countrymen in the closest thing they can come to a democracy. The stick is Fuel-Air-Explosives on their cash crops, i.e., opium poppies, food, etc. Join up or get bombed back into the Stone Age!

By: mike j

mike j — Fri, 18 Sep 2009 22:14:48 +0000

Medik47–
re:“Every time they fired the Gatling it snuffed the flame in the engine.“
Source that, please. The gun and intake were on opposite sides to prevent exactly that. I haven’t seen anything to indicate that the design didn’t work exactly as intended.

By: NV Smith

NV Smith — Fri, 18 Sep 2009 13:53:23 +0000

Pedestrian, et al:
We’re getting off track; F-20ish aircraft aren’t COIN birds & the one size fits all multi-role concept hasn’t worked too well. The Royal Malaysian AF may be an example; while they have (had?) a squadron each of Su 30, F/A 18, MiG 29 and F 5, they also have two squadrons of Hawk 108 & 208 and they aren’t trainers.
Besides, the F-20 is dead & ain’t never coming back. Possibly the closest thing around is the ROK T-50 and F/A-50 combination. I know nothing about their actual existence: I’m a grunt, not a zoomie.
IF we have to have a pure jet vice turboprop, and I remain dubious, then I suggest looking at something along the lines of the Hawk 200.
I really think “we” should go back to the LARA concept and take a look at the theory behind those design proposals.

By: josh

josh — Fri, 18 Sep 2009 13:12:49 +0000

I wonder if we can make the A-1 Skyraider again?

By: Medik47

Medik47 — Fri, 18 Sep 2009 05:46:12 +0000

Forget the ARES Mudfighter. Every time they fired the Gatling it snuffed the flame in the engine. The exhaust gases from the gun were sucked into the jet intake causing a flame-out requiring the pilot to do a emergency restart. Not a good thing anywhere.
<

By: pedestrian

pedestrian — Thu, 17 Sep 2009 15:39:45 +0000

Posted by: NV Smith at September 15, 2009 01:00 PM >Pedestrian: As an F-5 replacement I liked the F-20 >but a Mach 1+ bird does not a CAS/COIN bird make. The issue involving F-20 is more about cost per flight. Once again, I also do not beleive F-20 is the best choice for COIN. The reason why F-20 is a COIN candidate is its cheap price tag, and possible low cost per flight. COIN for third world countries is also an issue. Meanwhile these countries also may have conventional war threats. In this case, a fighter that is cheap, ideal cost per flight for COIN, ''AND'' a muti-role capabilities to engage coventional war may be the recommendations. In modern days, we should not forget a hybrid generation of assymetric AND conventional warfare mixed together. This is where the F-20 fits, only as part of the US strategy if it wants to share COIN ''PLUS'' conventional multi-role cheap fighter with poor allied countries, like Afghanistan. Once again, if it is just for US COIN use, I beleive OV-10 Bronco is the solution. However, if US concludes that it wants to share a multi-role fighter with poor allied countries, F-20 is on the table. F-20 is a COIN candidate only in terms of cost per flight and the price tag, with ''ADDITIONAL'' conventional warfare performance, not for its technical performance as COIN.

By: pedestrian

pedestrian — Thu, 17 Sep 2009 15:38:19 +0000