At his confirmation hearing before the Senate Armed Services Committee earlier this week, newly nominated Central Command head Gen. James Mattis reaffirmed his support for a turboprop aircraft to provide ground pounders with long loitering time, on-call recon and strike. The project called “Imminent Fury” was run out of the Navy’s irregular warfare office.
Mattis described it as a test program to see if inexpensive turboprops could replace the much more costly jets currently used in counterinsurgency battles. As we’ve described it before, the sought after design falls somewhere between the Vietnam era OV-10 Bronco and A-1 Skyraider.
While the Navy’s request for additional funds for the program was recently denied, Mattis said he’s still trying to build support for the concept, to at least gather data that could inform future spending decisions.
He’s going to have his work cut out for him as sources from the Navy’s irregular warfare community recently told Defense Tech the program is as dead as Julius Caesar. Who killed it? The Air Force, we’re told, and its powerful fighter community, which was not at all interested in sticking their pilots in a low and slow ground support aircraft. The Air Force is still having trouble choking down the “drone driver” mission.
As we wrote a couple of months ago, Air Force Chief of Staff, Gen. Norton Schwartz, shot down his own idea for an irregular warfare wing, arguing that the current, and future, inventory of jet aircraft can perform any and all close air support missions that a new, light strike fighter could. He could not envision replacing existing F-15, F-16 and A-10, or future F-35s for that matter, with a light strike aircraft.
Mattis made an important point in front of the SASC earlier this year:
“Today’s approach of loitering multi-million dollar aircraft and using a system of systems procedure for the approval and employment of airpower is not the most effective use of aviation fires in this irregular fight,”
Yet, without Air Force buy-in, it’s hard to see this effort goes anywhere. I’m not sure Mattis’ powers of persuasion will have much impact on the Air Force’s dominant constituency.
– Greg Grant
(hat tip: Bill Gertz)
{ 111 comments… read them below or add one }
If the Air Force doesn't want the mission. Then give authority & budget to the Army and let them decide. It is a ground support mission after all.
No can do. there is an ancient law or agreement somewere that says the Army cannot own or fly armed fixed wing aircraft. That would be poaching on the AF turf, and maybe the Army might get a bigger slice of the budget at the AF's expense. We couldn't let that happen, now could we?
You are correct – that agreement is just that; and agreement, and it's time for the SECDEF to through it out the window. It dates back to the '60 and it was ment to protect the "young" Air Force. They don't need protecting anymore and aren't interested in supporting the troops on the ground. Eight year in Afghanistan have proven that! It is high time for the Army to retake the CAS mission – the Air Force won't miss it!!
The AF jet fighter backers helped to prolong and loose in Vietnam because they (MOMYER) wouldn't allow a successful counter insurgency (AIR COMMANDO'S)
program under Col. Aderholt, who later finally got his deserved promotion to General, to fly close ground support, which was much more successful than fast inaccurate and sometimes costly to the lives of our troops on the ground by the zoomin jet fighters. The fast fighters cannot compare to a well built low speed propeller driven aircraft which actually see where and what is happening.
But as usual the ones making the decisions always want to use a bomb instead of a fly swatter to kill a fly. I know because I was there 67-68.
We need a 21st Century P-51! If we can piss out money for the JF35, then we can spend 1/10th that for a prop job that can do the same type job job.
I'd prefer a 21st century P47
. Late versions had better armament, protection, air-cooled engine…could withstand sever punishment and despite their size, handled very well even at low altitude. Used for that very purpose after 1944.
piper enforcer p-48 old school
Again the AF doesn't play well with others. The fighter jocks don't want the plane, but will fight to not let others develop the aircraft when the need exists. Do they think that their F-35A is threatened by an AT-6B? Yea, they probably do. The answer is to let the Army or the Navy (Marines) take on the challenge – they are the ones who are doing the dying. The AF just doesn't get it.
Enough with the USAF bashing. In truth, what does this COIN plane provide that the titanium armored A-10C cannot?
Yeah, and how much does th AF love the A-10. They wanted to replace it with an F-16, but it proved itself to be more effective at what it was designed to do. I say give the ground support missions to the Army and the Marines and let them fly the A-10s.
A much lower cost, not only to build, but also to operate and, if necessary, replace.
Sure a lower cost to operate, but what about development cost. Because even though
AT6 turboprop is an actual aircraft I bet the DoD will change specs and have to
re-develop the aircraft. not to mention we spent a ton of money up grading the A-10
to keep it flying until 2025. Sniper pods, glass cockpit , wing improvments…
Cheaper to replace huh? And the pilot?
Close air support missions through mountainous terrain in slow moving aircraft against a force armed with HMGs and MANPADS. Planes are going to go down. I fail to see your point.
Oh! Now the Air Force considers the A10 a viable CAS platform. Surely not the same plane the AF called antiquated, obsolete, and irrelevant and tried so hard to scrap pre-2003.
Considering you could fly and maintain an AT6 turboprop type aircraft at a fraction of the cost of a twin engine jet. Deploy from anything resembling a flat field, Train Afghans or any indigenous forces to fly and maintain with a modest budget. I really don't see any advantage whatsoever.
For starters the coin has a way longer on scene loiter time not to mention less cost to maintain and operate. Let the dogfaces and leather necks have full control of the program from the funding to the manning. Nobody knows the need of close air support like a fellow ground pounder
I it provides all the A-10 capability sans huge cannon at fraction of operating cost ,but provides much more than f 15 or 16 do at even higher cost and their short range limits the time on station or require a fllet of tankers on station,fully bombed up F16 requres refuleing cca every 30 minutes ,the war is so expensive because among other things you have 750.000$ per sortie B1 flying overhead doing a job that 5000$ per sortie coin aircraft could do.Also its not just the fighter jets that cost it the complete support tanker and gound crew that cost much more than for a coin turboprop. We are in situation where we cat afford to fight a war.
I did my time in the army and the AF,red horse ,sea bee's build airfleld up close, real close A-7,A-10,C-130 G/S,PIPER ENFORCE, T-6b kill them close,kill them nasty !
Isn't this a job a UAV should be doing, anyway?
The 'separate' air force has obviously not worked out well. They have forgotten where they came from and why they exist. They should be folded back into the Army.
I was SAC and belive you me the other branch could not have done what the B-52 has done — you probly could not express your opinion if were not for the USAF — you are not a good source to feed from. Good day
That's great, but we are talking about TAC not SAC. Most specifically we are looking for something that will level just a single hut and leave the rest of the surrounding city untouched.
I was in the Air Force for 21 years. Three of those years was working with the Army. The operate very differently. Putting the AF back into the Army would be like Taking a third year college student back into the 10th grade. If you are Air Force you will understand this statement. If you are Army ask someone to help you understand.
The seperate Air Force concept has actually worked out very well. Just like the other service branches (Navy Shipbuilding, Marine amphibious concepts, etc.) they are very much insistent on buying the shiniest new toys so they can keep fighting the Cold War. Thats where the problem lies, and truth be told, the Air Force leadership needs to be bitchslapped and replaced from the top down with people that weren't pilots.
They should fold all the A-10s, CAS aircraft and UAVs into the ARMY and keep the Air Force as a Air Superiority and Strategic Bombing wing. That’s all they want to do so let the ARMY do all the ground support related missions.
Statements like these are ignorant, because they assume that UAV's, the A-10, AC-130's, and the like are ONLY used for close air support. They're not. While CAS is a major mission for these platforms, they also support traditional Air Force missions as well, like Wild Weasle missions, interdiction, and (in the case of UAV's) surveillance and strategic bombing (in the form of targeted killings). If these platforms were to be transferred to the Army, then CAS WOULD be the only mission they would perform, which would be a waste of capability. If the Army wants these platforms so badly, there's no reason why both services can't operate them. The Air Force has operated the same aircraft (RQ-4, UH-60, UH-53, MV-22, F-4, A-1, OV-10, A-7, etc.) as the Navy and Marines in the past to fulfill different missions. There's simply no need to make the "Take away all the Air Force's CAS assets and give them to the Army!" argument, when the better argument is "Let the Army operate some CAS assets in conjunction with the Air Force."
I like your Idea!!!
@MCQKnight
When was the last time that A-10s were used for much else besides CAS missions? The primary purpose of A-10s and AC-130s are for CAS although A-10s have been pressed into FACA duties which it could continue if it were part of the Army. Interdiction missions can be performed by the F-35 and legacy aircraft like F-15s and F-16s and I’ve never once heard of an A-10 or an AC-130 performing the Wild Weasel mission, neither of those aircraft move fast enough to survive a Wild Weasel mission and neither are equipped to fire HARM (or similar) missiles.
P-48 PIPER (ENFORCER) MID,1970s
Sorry for being terribly off topic but I have a question I would like to ask you guys. My friend just brought up a phrase you have probably heard before "Support the troops, hate the war." I would like to get an opinion from who who were/is in the military themselves. What do you think of that saying?
Personally, I think it is an ultimately negative saying.
I believe you will find that most of us who have been to war really do "hate" war. That is not to say that we don't believe that war -at times – is a neccessary evil. Most people who subscribe to that point of view neither support the war or truely support the troops.
“Support the troops, hate the war.” This phrase was coined in response to those who would accuse one of being anti-patriotic for not properly supporting the Iraq war. It is designed specifically to get this response “neither support the war or truly support the troops”. It is best described as a ‘thought stopping phrase’ as it stops any logical debate at hand and reduces it to a schoolyard insult.
I understand where they are coming from, however not supporting the War the troops are fighting in doesn't send the right message to the troops, or the enemy. When Obama says, "The military will be pulling out on (Any Date)". The terrorist are celebrating the news. He says it to satisfy a particular political party and does the troops harm by telling the enemy our game plan. We all have a right to not like the war. No one has ever won in Afganistan. As much as I hate to say it, We most likely will not either.
The bottom line is: If you protest, condemn our being there or any other public out gry, you ARE hurting our troops morale and the effort they are dying for. Have your opinion, but keep it to you and your friends so as not to harm others, who are just trying to do their job and protect our country. Unlike Vietnam, terrorist from Afganistan did attack "US" first.
USAF Msgt., retired
I think it's time to stop blaming the fighter pilot mentality in the Air Force for killing this program. Firstly, A-10 pilots have been in the service for years now and many hold high ranking positions. This has created a culture where the close air support mission is more accepted and respected than it was twenty years ago, as well as the appreciation for a "low and slow" ground support aircraft.
Secondly, Norman Schwartz comes from the spec ops field, and flew AC-130's. If there ever was an Air Force Chief of Staff who's NOT part of the "fighter mafia", it's this guy.
Yes he did but if you notice how some of the spots wear off the cat when they get closer to the top rubbing elbows with politicians. A dense fog seems to cloud their minds and they tend not to see or remember their humble beginning and the lives of the troops on the ground.
And finally, many Air Force pilots are WAY more excited about the prospect of flying a turboprop into combat than a UAV. Getting a chance to fly any combat aircraft that's not a UAV will get many pilots excited.
So why is the program dead? Money. The Air Force doesn't think that any new acquisitions will be approved in full, and why should they? They couldn't even get the number of C-27's they wanted, a type of aircraft that's tailor made for low intensity conflicts like the ones we find ourselves in. In fact, I think the slashing of the C-27 budget convinced Air Force leaders that funding for any significant quantity of light strike fighters would not materialize. The brass is focussed right now on preserving what they view as their most critical acquisitions programs, in this case being KC-X and the F-35. Of couse, if they really want to save money they should just scrap the F-35 program and buy "4.5 generation" fighters to recapitalize the fleet. Buying a new 5th generation fighter is simply not a luxury we can afford with the current state of our economy.
Alas, my old service — a successful 20th century organization — is adrift in the postmodern, post-9/11 world in which we find ourselves. They need to 1) get serious about UAV operators as a distinctive career track not requiring UPT graduates, and 2) grab any manned aircraft opportunities that come along. Like this turbo-COIN machine. As some guy said a few years ago, the times they are a changin'.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piper_PA-48_Enforcer
Here is the Mustang frame with a RollsRoyce turboprop COIN aircraft.
THERE WAS PIPER P-48 (ENFORCER) U.S AIR FORCE COIN , MID 1970.s USAF DROP THE BALL AGAIN !
*sigh* AF is being difficult again. When we don't "really" need to wory about air supremacy what's the point of an AF but to provide close air support of ground troops. Yet the AF is shies away. If the AF doesn't want to be in the business of serving the Army in this capacity maybe they should get out of the way and let someone else.
Schwartz was worried about bells and whistles getting hung on the turbo prop option and its cost shooting up. I seem to recall an article where he mentioned things like ejection seats and defense systems that aren't necessarily included on the existing baseline turbo prop attack plane options out there. Although even if you took the AT6 or Super Tucano and doubled their price tags to like $20 million, seems like that would still be a pretty cheap option for a capability everyone seems to agree we lack. It's not like we need 2,000 of them.
Schwartz never said any of those things. The article you are referencing (I believe from this site) merely hypothesized that this was the reason it was cancelled. Considering that the ONLY company out there whose aircraft wasn't designed with ejector seats was AirTractor, I think it's a safe bet that they were the ones voicing the "bells and wistles" complaint. Seriously, designing a close air supprt aircraft that's going to experience lots of small arms fire, as well as be threatened by MANPADS, without an ejection seat is just irresonsible.
Oh, and the T-6 and Super Tucano both already have ejection seats, yet I don't think anyone thinks those are gold-plated platforms.
His comments with a listing of the reqs, seems like that what he was talking about to me.
"“As with most Air Force aircraft we kept seeing the requirements become “gold plated” — ejection seat only, pressurized cockpit, retractable gear, HOTAS, HUD, fully integrated (non commercial/COTS) cockpit, Helmet Mounted Sight, and on and on…
Read more: http://defensetech.org/2010/05/07/did-gold-plated...
Defense.org"
I am a Major in the Air Force attending school with the Army and here are some of my own thoughts. To what extent do we invest into an aircraft that is only good at doing one mission. We will not be on the ground forever in Iraq and Afghanistan and beyond those two locations (currently) the aircraft is obsolete. Platforms that are in country have the capability to support the troops on the gorund at will and will continue to do so on a day to day basis. If that is a UAS providing ISR or an F-16 and A-10 proving CAS.
A COIN craft would be invaluable in helping patrol our borders. Replace the bombs/rockets/missiles/guns with a sensor package and they can provide invaluable surveillance of illegal immigrants, smugglers and drug runner attempting to gain entry into our nation while relaying that info back to border patrol agents on the ground.
Besides that, its only a matter of time before we get involved in another low intensity conflict. Mexico is dangerously close to having a revolution on its hands, and I suspect that if that does occur, the US will most likely be involved, as the last thing we want is a narco-state next door.
COIN craft would be far more useful in such a situation than fast movers. Not just that, but most of the potential near-future hot-spots could see good use from COIN craft. If there is a conflict in Iran, that will start out fairly high intensity, but it'll probably end up being very much like Iraq, as we will most likely have to remove their government in order to prevent future attempts at the bomb. If the fighting finally does spill over into Pakistan, COIN craft will again be useful, it'll also be useful in Colombia/Venezuela, any African nation we end up being involved in, and possibly even North Korea.
The pattern for warfare in the 21st century seems to suggest a shift to low intensity conflicts and nation building/occupation, COIN aircraft are perfect in both situations.
Oh, and of course I forgot one last thing: SpecOps, jets are useful for this mission in their own right, but a light COIN platform offers certain advantages that a jet can't. For one, COIN craft can be forward based at unimproved airfields, so they can minimize the time to target, they can loiter for extended periods, and they are better equipped to provide up-close on target CAS. Precision munitions from a jet are pretty good, but there are situations where a lot of guesswork is involved with their employment when the guys on the ground are under heavy suppressing fire and cant call in a precise set of coordinates etc. A COIN plane can come in low enough to target the enemy visually, something that, from what I understand, is very difficult to do using F-16s/A-10s, and even more difficult at night.
With respect Major this line of thought is the same as what was considered back in the sixties. That line of thought was that since we had such a potent arsenal of air-to-air missiles that guns were no longer needed on fighters. It was soon apparent that old, low-tech weapons are still viable in any conflict.
I believe that the Air Force has looked beyond present day conflicts and realized that without 5th Generation fighters, we will be behind the power curve when it comes to maintaining air superiority and defending those we are engaged to protect. On the other hand, the AF has conformed the most to the present day conflicts. The number of UAS platforms operated by the AF is significant . I am fighter guy and would much rather fly a AT-6 in combat than a UAV but I don't believe the AT-6 mission will live beyond the current conflict.
If the AF was willing to invest in such a platform, it should be to rebuild the Air Forces of Iraq and Afghanistan. Utilize the aircraft to train their Air Forces so they can protect and defend themselves. A lot cheaper solution for those governments to purchase those aircraft rather than the USAF flying missions there for the next 20 years. Just my thoughts.
"The views expressed in this blog are those of the author and do not reflect the official policy or position of the Department of the Air Force, department of Defense, or the U.S. Government."
Given the advantages of UAVs, aren't they a better investment for COIN air support then bushplanes? UAVs ride the fence between conventional and COIN operations, while bushplanes are really pretty exclusive to counter-insurgency.
ov-10,a-7, a-10 , piper enforcer,t-6,c-130 g/s long live counter-insurgency. bushplanes? YOU ARE NOT OLD SCHOOL.
I think the arguments Ive read for manned COIN planes is the ability to interact with the FACs on the ground. As good as UAVs are currently they arent as responsive or provide the amount of information to the guy on the trigger as a pair of eyeballs.
Having said that, are there A10s in the boneyard that could be dusted off and converted to a COINcentric configuration for like $20 million? If so, seems like that would give more of what we need while retaining some multi-role capability.
I like that idea.
How about some OV-10's do we still have any of them in mothballs. Seems to me that they did a good job in Nam.
I was just having the thought….the A-6's and A-7's that we retired back in the 90's would have been perfect for the sort of loitering bomb truck missions that we're flying in Afghanistan. Why are we using Strike Eagles and Super Hornets for the job?
Because they’re what we bought.
UAVs are like recon looking through a straw.
What BS, why doesn't Mattis own Marine Corps just deploy some Navy T-6s tomorrow to show it can be done. Is it because the Corps own fighter jocks want the $200 million F-35 so much they stop that idea. For all those who don't understand why a turboprop (including nearly all USAF officers) read this: http://www.g2mil.com/O-6B.htm
I am one of dave's fellow Air Force classmates and thought I could comment as well. The AT-6 provides only one additional capability that is not currently provided by USAF aircraft in the AOR, which I will get to shortly. CAS and FAC(A)??? A-10s and F-16s have it covered. Target ID??? a modern targeting pod on current fighter aircraft is the same technology as the one proposed for the AT-6. All of them much better than the naked eye making "getting down amongst 'em" obsolete. Homeland defense??? An AT-6 is not going to run down a drug laden biz jet.
I don't think drug smugglers make such extensive use of business jets…
As for austere airfields, I can't name any, but I know that C-17s make use of them regularly when airlifting cargo to FOBs. We're not always going to have proper paved runways available to us, an aircraft capable of operating out of such an environment would be plugging a potential gap we may encounter in the future. And from what I have been lead to understand, targeting pods, while useful in their own right, are not the same as actually getting eyes on the target. They will not necessarily aid with target recognition and acquisition, they will help with actually putting the munition on target. Again, I've never operated one, so I can't say, but this is what I was told by people who have.
Mark,
Beg to differ, this aircraft is EXACTLY what is needed for COIN period. I assume a LITENING or SNIPER pod is your reference to a modern targeting pod and if so, there is no comparison between the optics of those pods and the Wescam family of sensors i.e MX-15i/D (D for Designator, Laser that is). It's one thing to track a target with a pod, it is quite another to develop atmospherics and pattern of life, then turn around and terminally guide your own weapons onto the target area that you've just spent the last 4 hours developing the target and having ultimate SA on. I have run the stack and tasked sensors prior to the JTAC hitting the ground. Tasking fighter sensors was limited to a few options because targeting Pods are limited to two fields of view- wide or narrow, no in-between. In other words either look at high speed avenues of approach or the door to a building. Its like comparing the Hubble telescope to a land-based system. I could go on at length about this little beauty of an aircraft that can actually help boost the Air Force's piss-poor standing in the SecDef's ISR world. I can absolutely guarantee that the assaulters on the ground would fall in love with this platform because it would cause the pilots to have to collect and report information first, in doing so they would not only develop total SA, but they would develop a pattern of life and a feel for the atmospherics, in other words, "getting down amongst them". You get involved to a more personal level, you share ownership, the first time you understand what is really going down and are able to lean forward and pass immediate actionable intelligence that saves a soldier's life, you get hooked, you start to build rapport with the assaulters, you start to feel what CAS pilots and tactical ISR sensor operators should feel, responsible for their safety, you are their eyes and ears, the oracle. Unless you've done that on a regular basis, you will never know how sweet that is. If the top brass understood this, they'd put more priority on the boots on the ground than the next generation fighter because "we fighter pilots must protect our history and tradition, even if it costs lives."
Oh well, it'd be more fun to do this over a few beers.
I think that was a little harsher than I meant it to be. Fighter pilots have saved my butt many a time when I was on the ground a s JTAC. An honorable group, many of whom I call friend. My respect for them, immense.
Bill
Finally, the austere airfield capability. Name one austere airfield in Afghanistan? Name one austere airfield with AvGas available? Name one austere airfield with rockets, rounds, and bombs to reload? I don't know of any. So the AT-6 would RTB to the same airfield as the F-16s and A-10s, only slower….
The one capability the AT-6 has over the fast jets? Afghans may be able to afford them, and we could train Afghan pilots.
"The views expressed in this blog are those of the author and do not reflect the official policy or position of the Department of the Air Force, department of Defense, or the U.S. Government."
Very little drugs are moved by aircraft across the border. Most of it is driven or carried from Mexico.
I also agree that whether we or not we buy a turbo prop we are definitely going to have a need for some COIN oriented option beyond Stan. We are very likely to be involved in Africa, the Arabian peninsula, for some time to come. The level of conflict is unknown, but I am pretty sure we won't need stealthy hypersonic bombers, or F22s, or F35s much in Somalia.
I also agree that a collapse in Mexico is a distinct possibility. So did the Pentagon in last years threat assessment, when they pegged a collapse in Pakistan and Mexico as a two most likely near term fiasco's we would have to address.
Just give the program to the Marines, not the Air Force, and have the prop operate under Marines. The Air Force will be happy to get rid of their own, and the Marines will get another CAS.
The only COIN/CAS/ ISR single turboprop designed for the mission was the A67 but the AF killed it for fear of loosing F22 money. The wars of today and tomorrow are ground wars needing this A/C designed for this mission, Let the fast movers take control of the airspace and turn it over to the low cost air to ground aircraft for the next ten years. If you win in a country what do you give them for an AF? Not F16's
1 F22 = 70 A67 w/ guns and hellfires, fast as A10, 12 hrs loiter. Army loved it , AF said no way we dont buy prop planes. We are the modern AF
I see that Mark did not read that article about the value of T-6s, or perhaps he doesn't understand it. Using his logic, we don't need UAVs either.
What about costs per hour? How slow can a jet fly? Does he realize the value of a back seater? Can 20 T-6s provide better support than one F-15? It is very expensive to fly fuel to Afghanistan, something like $400 a gallon. With T-6s you need fewer convoys. There are many cases where GIs died waiting for support, because there were no austere bases nearby. Why, because the USAF had no aircraft that can fly from them.
We had jets in Vietnam, so why did stupid grunts prefer the slow turboprops?
We'd be much better off without super duper targeting pods in Afghanistan. The USAF has slaughtered thousands of Afghan civilians and enraged the nation with its high-tech whiz bang stuff. We need slow fliers that can fly low and slow and see what is what, not B-1s and F-15s flying from luxury bases hundreds of miles away that want to dump their load on "something" so they can zoom home.
“Light attack aircraft” = cheap. Pilot = not cheap. There is no benefit for a “light attack aircraft”. Good CAS = survivable, long loiter, lots of firepower. There is no way we can get this for cheap. Absolutely no way. The AF should continue investing in the AC-130 or A-10 platform (don’t think we can afford all nor do I think it makes sense). Find ways to improve the A-10s loiter time or the AC-130s survivability and you got yourself an excellent CAS platform for low to medium intensity conflicts. This will allow the fighters and bombers do what they do best.
Actually, you can get cheap platforms with cheap pilots that don’t need special airfields, provided you choose a design that doesn’t need much skill to operate and has STOL features. Henri Mignet adapted his Flying Flea to provide the Free French with just that sort of capacity for their mopping up in France (though he only tried to provide spotter capability, not fire support).
Lawrence he does not mean "cheap" pilot as in cost to train, he means cheap as in the value of a human life, and he is right. There are survivability questions when it comes to this aircraft, but we have to remember that pilots, like infantryman, are in the military. They know that when they sign up to put on that uniform, that they are signing up to go into harms way to defend their country, and there is a chance that they won't be coming back. We do everything we can to minimize that risk, but its always there.
And unfortunately, the Air Force has developed itself a reputation of being the "safe" choice, because less of its personnel end up in actual harms way than the other service branches (yes, even less than the Navy, you have to remember they are sitting on targets, and if the ship goes down, chances are some of the crew will go with it). I think the Air Force could use a bit more "danger" in its blood, it will definitely help set some of the leaderships priorities into order, when they finally have to deal with not being the "untouchable" force that they are now
If we do have some A10s in storage suitable for conversion, and if it wasn't cost prohibitive, I would think maybe pulling the 30mm in favor of smaller caliber like a 25mm or even 20mm, and use the corresponding weight/space savings for additional ammo and fuel, would make for a dandy COIN variant A10. It would have longer loiter time, more bullets, plus still retain a degree of lethality in addressing armor in a conventional conflict. Maybe even skip an internal gun completely in favor of more fuel, and then just use a gun pod if needed.
This would be a good move. Don't get me wrong, I love the GAU cannon that its got, and while still useful in an anti-personnel role, I think it could be better served by a smaller gun with a greater ammunition capacity, increased fuel load to increase loiter, and bolt on a more advanced sensor pod. Better yet if they made it a 2-seater variant (like the proposed night attack variant).
It might not make for a true COIN aircraft, but it may just be 'good enough' (although I would prefer to build new copies of the variant rather than convert existing ones, I know Fairchild Republic is dead and buried, but someone has to be able to build them with some pre-installed upgrades, etc. without a significant increase in cost. They cost only what 20mil a copy in todays dollars when they were built back in the 70s?)
thank you!
What's readed is an upgraded A-10 STUKA that can do ground support throughout the spectrum. The A-10 has shown itself to be reliable, tought and able to stay on station to support. We don't need a turbo prop, just a newer more capable A-10 type aerial platform.
The Air Force has a long history of fighting any attempts to involve it in direct ground support missions and relevant aircraft. Preferring strategic missions and platforms, interceptor/fighter missions that generally take place at higher altitudes and their platforms has been the Air Forces pattern for many decades.
They fought the A-7 Corsair, the A-10 and similar platforms, preferring to to stay high and fast rather than get down in the dirt with the ground support missions and the platforms they bring.
Ask any Viet Nam Era (or since) combat arms Marine (or soldier) who their first preference for close air support was when they needed on time, on target (fast response/low and slow) air to ground weapons delivery when it hit the fan and they will usually say Marine or Navy.
That's why the Marines, much to the chagrin and displeasure of the Air Force have always insisted on organic close air support and the acquisition of true air support aircraft. The Air Force on the other hand choses the previously high visibility strategic missions like nuclear, cargo, long range high altitude bombers and fighters and avoiding the in their mind less prestigious and more dangerous low and slow mission of close air support that brings less funding and visibility in congressional hearings.
To their credit they do those missions pretty well, but it is a shame to let the AF have the big vote that denies ground forces adequate close air support. In this day of fewer dollars (the usual during Democratic funding control, i.e.. Carter, Clinton, etc.) and shared/dual and multiple mission platforms the grunt on the ground gets the shaft.
The Marines never forget that you can bomb all day, launch missiles all night, but until a grunt goes in and takes/holds the real estate in question, you haven't achieved anything. That's why every Marine regardless of job, from computer programmer to disbursing clerk or intelligence analyst to nuclear weapons team member knows that ultimately the only reason for their being is to support that guy with the gun on the ground.
And the AF hates that, preferring to drop bombs from 10,000 feet while Marine and Navy pilots get shrapnel damage from their own weapons deliveries if necessary, willing to get in the weeds to make sure the grunts get it on target – on time.
In a war like Afghanistan, when the infantry is under fire and calls for close air support, they should get what they need and if that means a low dollar, low prestige single engine single seat prop job, right now from a position in loiter, then that's what should happen. Not wait until it's too late for a snoopy scarf above the clouds to finally get there and drop close counts from above the clouds.
Weapons and weapons platforms and their underlying technology have changed and for the better but in the end, it's all about the grunt in the sh-t with the gun and the AF never has understood it. After 30 years in the Navy and Marines and numerous tours with on aboard AF bases and units, the basics remain the same. The equipment and missions change, but the attitudes and people haven't.
Bottom line: Mattis is a combat Marine, a Marines Marine and if he says Marines and soldiers need this relatively cheap and more functional aircraft, at least to give it a try, then he should be given deference over a bunch of desk jockies and high fliers, most of which probably don't know the true meaning of "CLOSE AIR SUPPORT".
Well put. Also important to remember (this means you, naysayers) that the Navy is currently field testing this program right now in-theater, and appears to be having some success with it, otherwise Mattis wouldn't be pushing for it. You can't argue with results, no matter how much you might try.
All you air force types making excuses need to go sit in the corner, put on your dunce cap and shut the hell up.
-The ONLY reason the A-10 is still around is because Congress says so. the air force would've gotten rid of it years of ago if they had their way
-You say the F-16 is doing a fine job of close support-you must be smoking some good stuff
-I say let the Army/Marines have this COIN platform, it will get lots of use for years to come and it will save lots of lives and hopefully end this stupid war quicker
-Lastly, the world doesn't revolve around shiny go fast jets, and stealth bombers, the world does revolve around the soldier and Marines on the ground.
Dean, I AM an "Air Force type" as you put it, and I am glad that Congress is forcing the A-10 on the AF, I acknowledge that the F-16 is not good enough, and if you look through all my comments in response to this blog entry, you will see that I am very much an advocate of the COIN concept. Please refrain from lumping us all together like that, I am sure you wouldn't enjoy it if I lumped together every member of your service branch (assuming you are in the service) for whatever stupid moves your branches leadership has made.
Koodoos to you sir, I guess you are not a 'typical' Air Force type
I spare no scathing of my service (the Navy) which in my opinion has been very very stupid this last ten years or so:
witness:
-the LCS (complete waste of money, it should be scrapped and replaced with a real Frigate)
-the San Antonio class (who's accountable for this mess?)
-political correctness above "war-fighting think" (our CNO and Chief of Staff, both should be fired)
-allowing ASW capabilities to slowly rot away (all of the leadership for the last ten years)
-and the biggest stupid of them all is retiring ships faster than they can be replaced
I’m not sure that using a T-6 (or similar) is a good idea in any conflict. It was never designed to survive combat. The A-10 is a good example of what is needed to survive combat and even they get shot down.
So the best solution may be a combat variant of the T-X trainer that the USAF wants (if they can ever dig out of the F-35 money pit) to replace the T-38. Of course they still need a new bomber, new fighters for the ANG, a standoff jammer…
Afternoon, fellas. I read your comments with a great deal of interest. I'm a retired USAF officer (23 years), and spent most of my time in the "purple" world. So, let me cast interservice rivalries aside for the moment and comment on this interesting piece.
1. What capability gap is the AT-6 designed to fill? It appears there's a perceived gap between the fast-mover (F-16/F-15E/FA-18/and don't forget NATO allies' F-16/Mirage 2000s flying over AF), the "mid-mover" A-10, and "slow-mover" attack helicopters (which I'm surprised nobody mentioned, as they seem to be the workhorses for Army CAS). Does such a "gap" really exist? Would the AT-6 get to the target area any faster than an AH-6 Apache or AH-1 SuperCobra? Would it be able to loiter longer than an A-10? Would the "Mark One Eyeball" of a pilot/observer outperform the ISR capabilities of a Predator or Reaper? Where would the "gap" lie that such an aircraft would fill?
2. Flight characteristics – An airplane flies in a linear fashion, and has to keep up its "smash" (airspeed) to stay in the air.. Not necessarily so with a helo. Admittedly, helos are harder to fly than airplanes (can I get a hooah, Army brothers?), harder to maintain and rarely have the "legs" of a fixed wing platform.
3. As one astute commentator previously observed, the strength of the AT-6 (or similar platform) might be the ability to equip foreign air forces with the aircraft in order to serve in a Foreign Internal Defense (FID) role. Some of you may be old enough to remember the O-1 Birddog, O-2 Mixmaster, AT-6 Texans, AH-1 Skyraider/Spad/Sandy, OV-10 Bronco,and A-37 from Vietnam. Many of those aircraft were "left behind" in the hands of allied pilots after US forces departed from SEA. Perhaps the SuperTucano would provide a similar "insurance policy." SuperTucanos have a proven record in the counternarcotics missions in Latin America.
4. No one has pointed out that, although marketed by Beechcraft, the SuperTucano is really a Brazilian airplane. You're all probably familiar with Congressional resistance to "not built in the USA" platforms. If it's not assembled or fabricated in someone's district….well, you know of what I speak. So, is there a comparable US platform that Congress might find more palatable?
5. The earlier observation about Gen Schwartz as the most "ground-friendly" CSAF who's ever held the job was a shack (on target for you non-USAF folks). Having worked for the man, I can attest that there are few leaders more trustworthy, humble, thoughtful and joint-minded than he. While I've experienced first-hand the "fighter mafia" and it's "not a pound for air-to-ground" ethos, I think the accusations of parochial belief or fast-mover fixation are off-the-mark. Rather, I think that USAF strategists are looking strategically at future threats. Some believe — and I think their hearts are true, therefore their council should be heard — that we must invest in platforms that will address missions beyond the FID/COIN/CAS realm. An exclusive CAS-aircraft investment in a time of defense drawdown/belt-tightening may not be a wise move in their minds.
That said, I believe the days of force-on-force conflict are widely oversold. I've written two books about my perception of the future of warfare — both on the topic of "manhunting". (See http://jsoupublic.socom.mil/publications/jsou/JSO... and http://www.publishamerica.net/product21810.html for the books, if you're interested). I believe there is a role for such an aircraft — especially in the FID/COIN mission area. But it's essential that such a platform be equipped with a surgical capability to deliver the minimum ordnance needed, exactly on top of the designated target. "Warheads on foreheads" is the future — strafing runs and napalm are no longer palatable for politicians, press releases or international humanitarian zealots. If the AT-6 is on the buying list — make sure it can deliver small ordnance with high accuracy. Even 120 knots is pretty darned fast to pickle a stationary or moving target.
My two cents. Glad a fighting Marine is taking over CENTCOM. Ooh rah. But remember, fellow soldiers and sailors: when the feces hits the rotary oscillator, everyone calls for air support. Don't forget those World War II pictures of German soldiers looking at the skies in dread/abject horror. You don't want to be them. The Air Force has its place, and we care about what happens to our brothers/sisters in contact with terra firma. Of my 23 years in the service, most was spent on the ground with you guys/gals. Keep your heads down and your powder dry. Bullets can be permanent.
GAC, first let me say that you are quite possibly my hero for your above comments (and being so purple-minded).
Second let me apologize for accidentally thumb-downing you, I mis-clicked, and unfortunately cannot change it now.
However, in regards to your comments regarding helo's, it is my understanding after pouring over various doctrinal publications, that the Army does not consider its helicopters to be CAS platforms, although they can be employed as such. It is also important to remember that they are extremely vulnerable, more-so than a turboprop.
Not relating to anything you just said….but how'd you manage to post such a long entry without splitting it up into multiple posts?
And just a small correction: the Super Tucano is marketed by Embraer, not Beechcraft. Beechraft is directly competing against the Super Tucano with the AT-6, an armed Texan II.
Maybe we shouldn’t have gave all those A-37 to central America, any chance there are still some in mothballs? My Guard unit in Michigan had them, it was a shame they were retired.
I did my time in the army and the AF,red horse ,sea bee's build airfleld up close, real close A-7,A-10,C-130 G/S,PIPER ENFORCE, OV-10 T-6b kill them close,kill them nasty !
you are old school!
Given the air force's unwillingness to fly low and slow enough to do close air support effectively it is time to give the army back their fixed wing aircraft.
I'd like to see a updated version of the venerable OV-10 Bronco. The Marines were getting good results from a Bronco with a belly mounted gun turret shortly before the program was canceled and there was a promising version with a 105mm recoilless rifle slung underneath. Just the thing for low-intensity conflicts where you want to blast a single hut, not the whole village.
http://www.fas.org/irp/program/collect/ov-10.htm
The bottom line is that the air force can't play astronaut and do the sort of close air support that the army and marines need at the same time. Time to cancel one or more of the air force's programs and and use the money to let the army buy a dedicated close air support arm of their own.
I did my time in the army and the AF,red horse ,sea bee's build airfleld up close, real close A-7,A-10,C-130 G/S,PIPER ENFORCE, ov-10, T-6b kill them close,kill them nasty !
How would those of you who've been on the ground feel about taking the money and putting it into a lighter attack helicopter for the Army? Not as light as the Kiowa, but not as burdened with the tank-killing sensibilities of the Apache. Something closer to a Cobra, perhaps.
I wondered if putting a pusher rotor would help with speed, but then you'd need contra-rotating rotors…as I'm not sure if a pusher rotor could be combined with NOTAR.
Is it possible to make a helicopter have the better forward dash speeds of a plane without compromising maneuverability?
I'm sure someone will suggest autogyros for kicks…but it'd be an interesting project to consider.
I'd be all for it, but it will not change the fact that there are many CAS missions that would be handled better and more safely by a plane than by a helo.
It really gets my goat that the Army aircrews are risked to do missions that could be more safely done in a fixed wing aircraft because that mission is 'too dangerous' for the Airforce. If the zoomie generals don't want their people doing the job that's great. Just give the equipment over to the generals who do want their people on the job.
A lot of the push for a dedicated COIN aircraft such as the Super Tucano or AT-6 seems to stem from people who believe that the future conflicts we will face will be prolonged counter-insurgencies like the ones we find ourselves in. Indeed, this seems to be the general consensus coming from the Pentagon. However, I believe this notion is completely off base.
The reason? It's that the American Public will not tolerate yet another full scale invasion and occupation of some third world despot.Any attempt or suggestion of nation-building will likely be strongly oppossed by many prominent members of the military, government, and the public. No one wants to start another 10+ year conflict so soon after (or before) our latest conflict has ended. If public sentiment is to support the next war, then the war will have to be quick, clean, and decisive, ala Operation Praying Mantis, Grenada, and Desert Storm. These types of conflicts heavily depend on Naval and Air power. These two aspects of warfare have traditionally been America's primary means of power projection, and they are likely to be so once again after these conflicts end. It is therfore understandable that the Air Force would not want to purchase an aircraft that would have little use in conflicts likely to emerge in the near future.
DISCLAIMER: I am a huge supporter of acquiring at least a modest number of dedicated light attack aircraft. I just think this shouldn't come at the expense of the USAF's, or any of the services', conventional capabilities.
How about a “one way ticket” drone? The unit cost of a shadow 200 is $275,000. It has a speed of about 100mph, a range of about 65 miles with 6 hr loiter time and a payload of about 100 lbs. I can easily see somebody playing with the design to get the unit cost down (perhaps low tens of thousands?) and stick a decent size warhead in it with some basic comm and navigation equipment. This type of fire support will have super long range, low maintenance and no dirt road/airfield required. You can have some serious fire support coming out of remote outposts. Use this system when out of artillery range and want to decrease the use of system of systems CAS from jets and decrease the use of small arms vulnerable maintenance intensive helicopters.
I'm also an Air Force officer, with 5 years of "purple" time under my belt, including at CENTCOM, and plenty of downrange time.
1) Stop trying to build a force to fight in Afghanistan, since by the time we get these things we'll have either won or been withdrawn, and the next fight won't be like this one.
2) That said, we do need to hedge our bets, so arm the MC-12, maybe buy a few more, and be done with it. It has plenty of loiter time, and with the FMV ball and potentially other sensor capabilities, dedicated crew for combat ID, and integration into the larger reconnaissance-strike complex, it'll be vastly more effective in a COIN fight than an AT-6 or Tucano. Also cheaper, since we won't have to acquire a whole new aircraft with its own training and logistical tail.
For this type of mission the A-1 SkyRaider's credentials were pretty darn demonstrative. The A-1 SkyRaiders flew in so many conflicts and were so highly effective that they were flown till they were completely worn out. The Air Force has been trying discontinue the Fairchild A10 Thuderbolt II air ground attack and support asset for decades even after its sterling record in Gulf War of Desert Shield and Desert Storm, and Iragi Freedom, as well as other sandbox operations. An aircraft as the venerable A-1 SkyRaider with modern technology and avionics would be a significant asset for loitering, targeting, and attacking enemy ground as well as targeting enemy ground assets for our jet air ground attack assets. A state of of the art A-1 SkyRaider would also have an excellent ability to track down and identify our downed aviators for extraction.
I did my time in the army and the AF,red horse ,sea bee's build airfleld up close, real close A-7,A-10,C-130 G/S,PIPER ENFORCE, T-6b ,ov-10, kill them close,kill them nasty ! old school baby !
I don't get where everyone's getting this "The Air Force hates the A-10" stuff from. Show me one quote where a high ranking Air Force officer badmouths the plane, and I'll show you a hundred were top brass sings its praises. Additionally, out of the hundreds of fighters the Air Force is about to retire, only like 6 are A-10's. If the Air Force so despised the A-10, then they wouldn't be going through the trouble giving the entire fleet new avionics and new wings in order to push their perfomance as far out into the future as possible.
Here are some quotes. http://www.leatherneck.com/forums/archive/index.p... http://dissidentvoice.org/Articles5/St.Clair_A10-... http://www.nytimes.com/2003/05/27/opinion/27CORA….
There are many others, but they are so old that they are hard to find.
As to the singing praises part – Secretary Gates fired both the military and civilian heads of the Airforce on his watch. Officially it was due to negligence with nuclear weapons, but it was widely know that neither man agreed with Gates about the mission to provide more to support to ground forces. If Gates will fire them for not supporting programs like CAS and drones exactly what do you think he'd do to a lower rank officer?
Your first link didn't work for me, and the second was from 2003. It's seven years later, and the culture in the Air Force widely accepts the A-10. Hell, even when that General made the order to study retirement of the A-10, his opinion was obviously in the minority since the A-10 is obviously sill around.
And as to the second part of your argument, if you're implying that junior Air Force officer's won't badmouth CAS because they're afraid they'll be fired by Gates, that' s so ridiculous as to not merit discussion. Junior – and Senior officers are free to disagree with Gates on multiple issues. It's when they start actively and publicly working against their civilian chain of command that their jobs are jeapordized.
Yeah right. Here's another link to a story about an airforce that is "not at all interested in sticking their pilots in a low and slow ground support aircraft"
http://defensetech.org/2010/07/29/mattis-still-su...
Congress forced the Air Force to keep the A-10 over its objections. The Air Force is doing nothing to push a next gen A-10, although the Army is very interested. The Air Force wanted to have the F-35A replace the A-10 despite its very different mission and the quote in the original post reflects the continued Air Force view that in their view the F-35A together with the F-22 which it wants more of than Congress will permit, should replace all fighting aircraft in the current fleet (except bombers).
The Air Force simply does not recognize that high speed jet aircraft with stealth capabilities that are very expensive to buy are not the optimal aircraft for all combat missions except heavy bombing.
The trouble is that a large share of our likely military adversaries either don't have air forces of their own, or don't have them long after going to war with the U.S., and often don't have meaningful radar or sophisticated anti-aircraft resources either.
Stealth and air to air combat capability are a critical ability to have, but there are lots of missions that don't require those capabilities, and the stubborn refusal to get planes that are cheaper and better suited for COIN missions is indefensible.
Agreed. But the Air Force only began singing praises for the A10 Thunderbolt II after Desert Storm and Iragi Freedom. Before that there were continued rumors that the A10 was going to be retired because it did not belong in a modern jet fighter ground attack air force.
One of the best things the administration could do with be to redraw the Key West agreement to give the Army its own ground support and logistics Air Force. At the same time, the Marines ought to get full charge of the ships they use and responsibility for sea based fire support for themselves.
The Navy/Marine team is on paper two different services but in reality they are one service. The Navy gave birth to the Marines (in 1775) and they raise them up (same schools, both Navy and Marine officers go to the the Naval academy, both attend the same aviation training, and they share the same airplanes) to be "Naval" infantry from the sea therefore they are called Marines. The SecNav is in charge of both. The Marines is a component of the Navy much like the submarine, surface, and Navy air forces are. The only platform Marines don't serve on (except for special forces) are submarines. Even though I was in the Navy my drill instructor was a Marine! The Navy wouldn't be the Navy without the Marines and visa versa, so your suggestion is a bit 'uneducated.' Whereas, the Air Force was physically seperated from the Army because of it's own doing.
Bad news AF bashers – AF didn't kill this program. Sorry to burst your bubble.
In reading the previous entries, I see that most everyone is fighting the last war. With the overwhelming proliferation of hand held anti-aircraft devices, any low-and-slow aircraft would be a death trap. Loitering in one area is no longer viable due to the destructive capabilities of the enemy ground troops. The Russians found this out in Afghanistan and left. As has been mentioned previously, helicopters are too vulnerable to ground fire, and so too would be any slow flier. Planes are relatively cheap at hundreds of thousands of dollars, but pilots are not. Even a turboprop pilot costs millions of dollars to train…not counting the costs to his/her family when they are lost. No, warfare cannot be considered safe, but losses in personnel should be minimized if possible in completing the mission.
I don't think that state of the art has given us a possible solution at this time, but, for the present, the UAV, the helicopter, and the A-10 seem to be the best we can come up with.
Any Why is the Navy running his program??? Most of this will be conducted over land not water…lets get back into our lanes in the road…
If you are involved in Naval irragular warfare, make sure it involves water somewhere…
Sure, the Prop-driven aircraft are slower than jets—which give the pilots time to hone-in on their targets with full visual time while firing their weapons. The old Vought-Corsairs give us plenty of air-cover during ground combat in Korea (1950s) and the jets could not use their guns as long. "Loitering-time" is givng the pilot enough time to do a job that needs time to get it done right. General Mattis knows what he is talking about. Unfortunately, the politicians do NOT want to listen to their Generals.
Prop-driven fighter-bombers did well during the 1950s in Korea. The old Vought-Corsairs, driven by Marine Pilots—brought the fight-to-the-fight, whereas the jets could never come in close and long enough to be as effective during ground combat. General Mattis knows what he is talking about. Unfortunately, the 'politicians' do NOT—as they do NOT want to listen to their Generals.
My dad was a grenedier on the russian front in 1943, got wounded and then learned to fly. He flew He-219s at the end of WW2, came to the US as a 17year old POW, stay as a minor and enlisted in the USAF in 1948. He became a officer and flew Mustangs then A-26s in Korea. Because of his background he flew was always assigned to odd aircraft. But he never forgot being a grunt. I've done 2 tours in Iraq and 4 in A-stan and I truely believe that the USAF(and most USN and even alot of USMC pilots) have forgotten the GRUNTS.
Maybe the wild comments on this page about making a strategic air command and rolling the rest of the USAF into the Army is not such a crazy idea. No pilot training until you have served in a leadership position in a Combat Arms Unit. Let the Strat boys fly around in shiny jets and let warfighters fight wars.
also just a note the order of preference in most of my A-stan tours for support was AH-64, B-1B, British Harrier and then French Mirage2000.
just my 2cents.