why no raf gunships

[mr fish]

watching ross kemp got me thinking about ac130s etc, seems like just what our grunts could use right now!!

[TurbineTooHot]

Cash.

Massive Lack Of.

Unfortunately.:(

[Evalu8ter]

BAES, Westlands

Not made by

Unfortunately.

[The Helpful Stacker]

Considering we don't even have guns on our standard CAS aircraft it'd be a bit much to expect the budget to stretch to an aircraft that is really good at what it does, as long as the otherside don't have weapons much more dangerous than AK47s and sharpened fruit to blatt away at it with.

[AlJH]

Capitals.

Massive lack of.

[F.O.D]

Helpfull stacker is wrong, our main CAS asset is now the GR4 which is equipped with the very handy Mauser cannon.

regards

F.O.D

[Never Alert]

Hmmm,

no disrespect to the GR4 mates however, even with a cannon lacking, the GR9 is a far better CAS platform & the guys are far more swept up on CAS than the Tonka mates.

Not a knock at the Tonka fleet, just how it is!

[High_lander]

Unit Cost:
AC-130H, $132.4 million;
AC-130U, $190 million (fiscal 2001 constant dollars)

SOURCE (http://www.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?fsID=71)



The only problem with using the AC-130 is that it can only, under USAF SOPs, be used at night-

Soon after eliminating the target designated by the Marines, a lone Iraqi hoisted an SA-7 "Grail" manportable surface-to-air missile to his shoulder. In the dawn of the early morning light, the form of the large AC-130 slowly became visible in the skies over Khafji. The decision to remain behind to support the Marines cost the pilots and crew of Spirit 03 their best defensive weapon - darkness. The Iraqi pointed the weapon at the aircraft, and fired. The missile found its target and at 0635 hours the aircraft sent out a "mayday" distress call and then crashed into the waters of the Persian Gulf. All 14 crewmembers were killed

SOURCE (http://www.specialoperations.com/Memorial/spirit.html)


Would be fanatastic if we had them though.

[Grimweasel]

Wrote my BANDAR essay on the very subject when at Cranners. The Black Watch Major who was just back from Flaujia (?) in Iraq 04 and then on the OS Staff, couldn't agree more.

The initial cost is quite high, but then the savings on weapon systems over the term is huge. Compare the cost of a Stormshadow or Brimstone with that of a 105mm shell from the rear of the AC130. The targeting software uses apparently, the most complex from of computer code in any aircraft in flight.
They are hugely accurate. The 20mm Vulcan has now been replaced with another 40mm cannon as far as I'm aware.
Saw one in Hurlbert, Florida once, where the captain told me the tail moves some 13ft due to the recoil of the howitzer being fired!

The loiter time is much greater than any fast jet and they can stay on tgt for hours. They are the only kite that is allowed to self-FAC, although I have heard of UK troops flying on them when they are supporting certain UK focused ops!

[High_lander]

I've read its the pilots are the ones who actually fire the guns, they have screens mounted near the controls.

UPGRADES (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AC-130#Upgrades) are planned for the AC-130U & H, would make it hell-a-scary, espescially with Vyper strike.

[1771 DELETE]

Our troops arent actually lacking, on 2 occassions in Iraq we had an AC 130 in support of our ops and made fine use of it too. They took their fire commands from the targeting MR2. So, if the mission requires that sort of support, the boys will get it, just ask through the proper channels.
Telling the crew to switch the guns off took a bit longer than it should have but thats life:)

[Guzlin Adnams]

:mad:Ask the nice supporter of Raith Rovers, yes the one that resides in Downing Street for some of the money that the taxpayer is having to pay for another Treasury c0ckup. The one concerning rebuilding/refurbishing London Underground. The burden of risk was to be taken on board by the Contractor, Matrix I think it was called, a consortium of large building contractors/Civil Engineers. At least that was the Treasuries plan. Well, it was untill things went badly haywire and Matrix walked away to cut their losses. Wonder if they found the ground to hard to dig into....probably some of that Northern Rock:E. Result, Matrix pays 300 Mil, taxpayer contributes 1.7 Bil. Now isn't that fair:=.
An over simplification of the story I guess but you can see the point that I'm trying to make. How many 130 gun-ships would that buy? Also maybe another C17 etc etc etc......

[harrogate]

AC 130 is fine, assuming it's a conflict where the Yanks are involved too.

What if we want to attack Holyrood?

[rudekid]

Well, with a statement this well informed we should be able to put this to bed...:hmm:


Considering we don't even have guns on our standard CAS aircraft it'd be a bit much to expect the budget to stretch to an aircraft that is really good at what it does, as long as the otherside don't have weapons much more dangerous than AK47s and sharpened fruit to blatt away at it with.

[Magic Mushroom]

Current AC-130 variants are unaffordable as they are based on the 'classic' C-130 airframe and we couldn't afford to pay for the development costs of an 'AC-130J'.

What we should be looking to do more of is ro-ro installations of mission kit on aircraft such as the C-130J or King Air. An 'AC-130 lite' fitted into the back of a J with sensors fitted in removable doors or in converted fuel tanks on the under wing hard points (yes I know our Js don't carry tanks but I believe that the hard points are still there) could potentially bea viable system at a much lower costs. We don't need the big 105 for the majority of the time.

I acknowledge however that the Herc boys are already very heavily tasked. Alternatively, stick it in the back of a platform such as a King Air. Other missions such as various ISTAR disciplines or EA could also be developed in this way at a much lower cost than would be expected for a full up system.

Regards,
MM

[nav attacking]

Dream on boys and girls. They can't even give the MR2 a laser designator never mind some ordnance that would save having a squadron of CAS aircraft at Kandahar. When up against the Taleban who needs complex fast jets. What you need is linger time and a fast sensor to shooter time. XV230 excepting we (MR2) could be there for 7 hours with a payload that would embarrass the average fast jet, and we could self designate given a small amount of cash. I personally have said this to many an Air Rank but it seems to fall on deaf ears.

Lets face it we are a Fast Jet Air Force after all.

Even if we have fallen below the majic 40 000!!!

Pissed again.

But still making some sense

[LowObservable]

The AC-130 is very good at doing one thing: nocturnal close air support, to which it brings the best persistence (aircraft endurance and a deep magazine), accuracy and discrimination you can find, Other things it either can't do safely or (reconnaissance for instance) are more cheaply done by other systems like UAVs. It's therefore only affordable by a very large AF.

[Never Alert]

The GR9 guys are getting more experience with the events on the ground, with a wider range of challenges, than the GR4 folk are dealing with over in Iraq. Don't take this as a swing towards the Tonka guys, I have utmost respect for anyone who is willing to place his or pink body into harms way on a regular basis. It is however, a fact that we are dropping more warheads in Afghan.

From my experience of seeing the guys on Fast Mover etc, the GR9 is better at CAS. The airframe was designed with CAS in mind (Russian tanks charging towards W.Germany) from the start, as opposed to the Tonka which is being forced to change with the times and adapt into different roles.

Today's major theatres are both a tad warm & as we all know, the GR4 does not like being hot, high and heavy (if only they had included the Typhoon engines in the upgrade, as originally planned). Surely those conditions make it much harder for a GR4 to stay over a TIC, at a safe height & speed, whilst remaining effective than they do for a GR9? I appreciate that they would probably get there faster.

Should the GR4s relieve the GR9s on Herrick, they will no doubt do a great job within the limits of an airframe. Two sets of eyes looking down would certainly be a bonus.

I believe that sensor to shooter time is about the same for both jets. Didn't the Jag have the edge on that?

IMHO, experience counts for a great deal and I don't think that there are many communities, that are more experienced and current in CAS than JFH (RAF with a hint of Navy;)).

Stay safe, regardless of what or who you fly in!

[nav attacking]

Me thinks you all protest too much. I have first hand experience of the delays in getting CAS onto a target in Afghanistan. We find them, it then takes at least 1 hr to get CAS onto the scene and then we are lucky if they can find the same target. Give us SDB and an LD and we could be self sufficient. Sensor to shooter loop is what it is all about these days...

Yes we still need fast jet in the right circumstances, I don't argue that. What is needed is a platform that can mark the target and take it out when required, within seconds of being given the clearance from the ground not 1 hour...

I await the inevitable barrage of fast jet protest...

[1771 DELETE]

Nav Attacking
You will get no lambasting for me, having been there doing the job in the MR2 with a support AC 130, reaction time was whatever the AC needed to cock his weapons.
The bottom line, you have to be on station for a long time and no FJ is going to do that without tanker support, which as we all know is extremely limited.
Just give the MR2 some guided weapons on the wing hardpoints like the P3 and the problems resolved - although a big gun would be nice.

[Fire 'n' Forget]

Never Alert


Stay at Scampton and get on with your training, You are not qualified to give an expert opinion especially using 'Fast Mover' as an example of your knowledge. :ugh:

[minigundiplomat]

although a big gun would be nice.

Really? what type/calibre? What qualifications are you going to introduce? What tactics/heights are you going to fly?

If the MIB's are in gun range, your in RPG range. And a 1950's airliner is a much bigger target than a tellytubby on a scooter.

Sh1te idea. If I was you, I'd stick to getting the bloody thing airborne to do it's primary role rather than speculative pipe dreaming.

[jez_s]

Gents,

With the upmost of respect, I'm feeling abit uneasy about what's being disclosed about capabilities on this thread. Now it may be common knowledge in other circles you frequent, but as a civvy i've learnt about a capability that I wouldn't have of if I hadn't read this thread!

Now if I'm out of line I will humbly apologize....but I've just read this thread and gone 'well I didn't no that'!

Please take care out there.

Jez

[rigpiggy]

"I've read its the pilots are the ones who actually fire the guns"

the gatling guns are hard mounted. the pilot uses a sidemounted HUD, that projects a pipper/crosshair to center then they fire. The remainder of the guns are tied to LLTV, IR targeting and also electronic emissions sensors. The 25mm gau 12, and 40mm bofors are to be replaced by 2010 with the 30mm bushmaster, which will give airburst capability to the smaller cannons. The 40mm's are too old and are hard to service. There is also talk of replacing the howitzer with a 120mm breech load mortar. and lantirn pods with hellfire missiles for standoff targeting.

[jez_s]

well I didn't no that!:ok:

[0497]

Having a 120mm mortar inplace of the howitzer will allow them to use those new laser guided mortar bombs that are coming onto the market.

[TheInquisitor]

Yes we still need fast jet in the right circumstances, I don't argue that. What is needed is a platform that can mark the target and take it out when required, within seconds of being given the clearance from the ground not 1 hour...

We already have that:

http://blackflag.files.wordpress.com/2007/07/reapermq9.jpg

14hrs persistence fully loaded, sensor-to-shooter time Zero. Fast enough in most circumstances.

[Pontius Navigator]

well I didn't no that!:ok:

jez, so it seems.

Oddly what might appear to be sneaky beaky stuff here has often been aired in the specialist magazines ages ago. If you read these magazines you will find full colour photos and diagrams etc that often make valuable training material for our own people. You will find that they were all officially sanctioned.

On Pprune, not so long ago, there appeared a picture of a steely blue-eyed killer. That pic had appeared in a US publication some years earlier.

As for capability, over 30 years ago, I was on a course that used open source material regarding synthetic aperture radar, helmet mounted sights etc. Its all there and usually a video on U-Tube too.

[GPMG]

Errr I played the AC-130 level on Call of Duty 4 on the X box and did very well......am I qualified to talk about this subject? :)

I'd still love to see us get hold of a few Skyraiders, just because they look nice and the sound of a couple of fully loaded Spads loitering in the distance would be quite a morale boost I should think.

[mr fish]

i recall reading many years ago that the first airframes of this class were old c47s with 3 or 4 .50cals stuck out the windows. i saw a spectre on the static line at mildenhall in the early 90s, my wife who normally pays no attention at all said it made her feel 'funny' :ooh::ooh:

[Never Alert]

Never said I was an expert FnF, just an opinion.

[andyy]

Perhaps we should have bought a few squadrons of second hand A10 instead of the US giving them to their Air National Guard? Plenty of loiter time & good weapons carrying capacity. Oh, & its a pity that the US never bought the 2 seat Night/ Adverse weather version but there you go...

[Pontius Navigator]

I believe there can be no comparison on effectiveness by comparing the GR4 on Telic with the GR9 on Herrick. The nature of the beast is wholly different.

[jez_s]

P-N

Nice one, it wasn't the AC-130 I was refering to but there you go:)

I just had a flash back to that security film they used to show us about opsec, the one where the herc gets taken out on the way to the Falklands carrying a belly full of missiles....ah nostalgia:ok:

As for call of duty 4 what a top game:D

regards

Jez

[Pontius Navigator]

jez, true, I remember that one. There was also a Pongo one where the commander was known to insist on leading from the front. He was also known for his individualistic R/T.

The RCM guys DFd him - game set and match.

[circle kay]

Pontius,

I Don't think it's been called RCM since Suez.

All you needed was an ABC Lanc and a 'Specal Op':)

[Cyclone733]

All you needed was an ABC Lanc and a 'Specal Op'

10 minutes with google and all I've come up with something about airborne Cigars and Tall Boy bombs. Fun stuff

[Pontius Navigator]

circle_kay, in English maybe. Try Russian :)

I am not absolutely sure but it is something like Radio Combat Electonic Warfare. Esentially ComInt.

Just Googled too - now REC

Radio Electronic Warfare

[rigpiggy]

Minigundiplomat, Maybe you meant a SA-7?

As with similar weapons, the RPG grenade protrudes from the launch tubes. It is 70-85 mm in diameter and weighs between 2.5 and 4.5 kg. It is propelled by a gunpowder booster charge at 115 m/s, which creates a cloud of light grey-blue smoke. The rocket motor ignites after 10 meters and sustains flight out to 500 meters at a maximum velocity of 295 m/s. The grenade is stabilized by two sets of fins that deploy in-flight: one large set on the stabilizer pipe to maintain direction and a smaller front set to induce rotation. The grenade can fly up to 1100 meters; the fuze sets the maximum range, usually 920 m.

Accurate firing is difficult over 300 m and with the RPG-7 the phrase "the closer the better" is always true. During the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan the mujahideen tended to use the weapon at ranges of less than 80 m.

The Afghans did develop a novel approach using the grenade self destruct mechanism, by volleying 5 or more shots in the same area/time, and trying for an improvised airburst effect

[Magic Mushroom]

RCM was Radio Counter Measures. We now refer to it as Electronic Counter Measures although RAF RCM assets from WWII included what we'd now know as EA, ELINT, COMINT, even active comms spoofing.

When you look at what 100 Gp did in the war, it could be claimed that the RAF wrote the book on SEAD, Compass Call and SIGINT.

Regards,
MM

[Never Alert]

Fire N Forget, check your PMs.

[Evalu8ter]

The problem is that we're very much like the USAF when they stumbled into Vietnam in the mid 60's; an Air Force obsessed with technology and peer enemies. COIN and the like were dirty words as you could do them with cheap platforms, with good payload / endurance. The USAF were proudly buying F111s / F4s as the newest shiny toys, and promptly found themselves in a "dirty" war. The result? Eventually when they realised that the war was going to drag on they dragged the Spads out of AMARC and, horror of horrors, had to buy the A7 from the navy....In the post war "wash up" the US Army scared the sh1t out of the USAF with the Cheyenne programme and effectively blackmailed the USAF into buying the A10. The USAF have been looking for an excuse to can the A10 ever since and buy more shiny F16s but it, annoyingly, keeps being useful so now they are finally going to bite the bullet and make the A10 the ac it always should have been.

Now the RAF really doesn't want to get dragged into the "dirty war" properly. We can spare some GR9s, and will send some Typhoons for obligatory DSOs/DFCs and endless RAF News photoshoots. However, the Airships must be secretly hoping that this nasty little war doesn't persist long enough to have an effect on future plans. That would mean more emphasis on MRA4 as a TST platform, the possibility of Gunships (you can defend them properly if you fit the right kit) and even the thought A10 style dedicated COIN aircraft...the horror! Even worse, the Apache might prove itself as the weapon of choice.........! Of course, the Budget wont go up, so something else would have to go..........

[Pontius Navigator]

Evalua8tor,

You are almost certainly right. CAS is on record as saying he has his eye on the future, that the current operations are not what we will be doing in the future. This may well be more a question of hope over experience.

I have just read an article about WW2 transport aircrafirt in Air Power. Quite apposite.

First the RAF procurement was neglected in the inter-war years. Then we concentrated, or more properly over-concentrated on fighter aircraft at the expense of bomber aircraft and bomber aircraft to the exclusion of transport aircraft.

The only parachute capable aircraft after we formed a parachute division were bomber aircraft that could carry 8-10 men!

Eventually we went to the US and persuaded them to provide C47s. A good parachuting platform but we still needed to modify heavy bombers as glider tugs.

Effectively we had no capacity to build transport types as we had had no perceived need. In its way this was why, with the exception of the Comet, that we were always late in post-war passenger aircraft.

Now we are concentrating on sexy fast pointy things for the future when we need unsexy slow noisy things now. As the only source? Well?

[High_lander]

Hmm, maybe when 'Kieth' (A400) comes in, we could study the options for putting weapon systems on board? More space, load carrying etc?



On another note-

read on the BDSUS site that our spenditure on budget was the same amount the US DoD spends on communications. In 2005 our spenditure was 2.5% of the GDP.

[minigundiplomat]

As a staunch member of the SH Force, I have to say that the Apache, and the AAC are doing a damn fine job in the Sandpit. I can certainly see them as the platform of choice. They need more hours though!

There, I've said it!

[NURSE]

For a country the size of the UK and for an Air Force the size of the RAF tying up resources in an AC130 type aircraft would be ludicrus. The Apache is doing sterling work as has already been said what would probably be useful is more of them, More spares and More hours for them and the Harrier and a few corrections to errors made in GR9 planning like lack of a cannon.
If we as a nation were to buy some AC130's how long would they be likley to be in service? and do we see our selves still being in the sand pit for that length of time. And as is being pointed out in other threads the cold war could be on the horizon.

[Evalu8ter]

Nurse,
How long are we liely to be involved in the sandpit(s)? IMHO a disturbingly long time. Witness Condi Rices attempts last week to steel NATO for a "long counter-insurgency war". If this war lasts another 10-15 years (not unreasonable considered the lack of clear enemy CoGs and their fanaticism) then shouldn't we be investing in capabilities now that will stop our people becoming casualties in 5-8 years time?

The sort of Rhetoric that Putin spouted last week is just what CAS, BAES and the rest of the Military Industrial Complex (as Ike put it) wants to hear. In reality, if the Bear gets shifty, 232 TypHoons are really not going to make a difference, and, if we are genuinely concerned about a new Cold War when is the GDP spent of defence going to assume the 3.5-4% level again?

An all-new FW Gunship based on A400 or C130J could be in service for an awfully long time. The sort of "service" they could provide in just the ISTAR role (to relieve other assets) would make them earn their keep. Put a decent up to date DAS on the thing (new MWS/LAIRCM/IRSS etc)so you can operate it in daylight, a good TI /LLTV turret and away you go.
ISTAR, TST, CAS all in one platform with deep magazines and excellent endurance.

Meanwhile, yes, let's get more AH and crews to fly them rather than fretting about Colonels' taxis....

[andyy]

Apaches are very sophisticated and very expensive, doing a fantastic job but they were a cold war weapon and I doubt that we can afford many more. Given the low weapon sophistication of the enemy in Afghanistan, I wonder if we wouldn't be better off buying a squadron or 5 of Black Hawks for the SH force & just fitting them with rockets, cannons & mini guns, like the US Army used Huey's in Vietnam. The SH force would get extra assets & they would have the flexibility to support troops on the ground with firepower.

[Pontius Navigator]

On a question of the AC130 guns, it is probably not necessary to re-engineer the chain guns etc as the aircraft height will enable a greater range.

With the 105 however a normal ground gun has to be strong enough to hold the charge that will lift the shell to its apogee. As the C130 is firing downwards in direct fire mode it follows that the charge can be significantly reduced. Similarly the whole breech and barrel can, I would guess, be reduced in strenght and weight too as the stresses can be lower.

Does the AC130 have a special lightweight airborne use only 105?

[Maple 01]

First the RAF procurement was neglected in the inter-war years. Then we concentrated, or more properly over-concentrated on fighter aircraft at the expense of bomber aircraft and bomber aircraft to the exclusion of transport aircraft.

So shouldn't have spent so much time on those Spitfires, Hurricanes and costly RDF? :rolleyes:;)

[0497]

Does the AC130 have a special lightweight airborne use only 105?

The AC130 uses the 'old' WW2-based M102 howizter (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M102_howitzer).

From that Future Weapons series:

AC130-pt1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T73nkuAgnoQ

pt2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sw7nk4Zmq1U

[Evalu8ter]

Andyy,
Nice idea to buy DAP style Blackhawks but a few problems. One is money. Not just to buy the airframes (they are relatively cheap though) but also the cost of recruiting, training and retaining the aircrew...unless you scrap all thought of Flynx, retire the asthmatic AH7/9 Lynx early and re-equip the AAC with it. In addition, another type in the inventory is always an added Training and Logisitic burden. The Canadians are thinking of going down this route with their CH-146s in the stle of the USMC UH-1N escort / CAS role. However, the 412 style airframe is not particularly sprightly once you weigh it down with wpns/sensors/DAS/armour so they might struggle in AFG.

Maple 01, I think that PN was referring to the almost endless stream of fighter procurement in the 1930s as Fury gave way to Gauntlet to Gladiator to Hurricane via some hiccups, ie Defiant. Clearly the crash monopalne fighter / Home Chain programmes were incredibly prescient (perhaps like we are talking about a long, dirty COIN / CAS war?) but there is no denying that the quality of Parachute aircraft (eg Whitley) and glider tug (Stirlings were still in production in 1944!!) was as a result of possible over-emphasis on fighter type aircraft during the inter-war years. Even the "bombers" ie Blenheim / Hampden were "fighter like" leaving the Wellington and Whitley as the only genuine bombers at the outbreak of war. Mind you, the Stirling turned like a fighter as the spec demanded it fit in 100ft wide hangar doors...

[Chugalug2]

Evalua8tor,
You are almost certainly right. CAS is on record as saying he has his eye on the future, that the current operations are not what we will be doing in the future. This may well be more a question of hope over experience.

Which merely points to the present CAS being the wrong man in the wrong job at the wrong time, and must go for the sake of the Service and of the country. Now that the bizarre concept that our forces might prevail in Afghanistan with not a single shot fired has been consigned to the dustbin containing predictions that we would be retiring ever earlier thanks to our work being cascaded onto robots and computers, we must prepare for the long haul. Anybody's guess as to how long is as likely as any other's. This is our Vietnam, and we either pull out in the same precipitous manner as the US did from there, or sincerely believe that this lawless medieval society can be pulled into becoming a constitutional democracy. I would have grave reservations as to the latter's likelihood, but if that is our policy then we must be properly prepared for it.
As to the Hercules gunship this is an over specialised weapon system that emerged from the "Puff the Magic Dragon" of the Vietnam era. Whatever the platform chosen, the lessons of that era, when WW2 Skyraiders were used in a similarly total Air Superiority environment, must be re-learned.

[minigundiplomat]

Did Mummy not breast feed you AIDU?

OK AIDU, have you actually operated with UK Apaches in theatre? Should be an easy enough yes or no question.

[BigBusDriver]

http://i33.photobucket.com/albums/d87/AeroplaneDriver/Guardian011.jpg

[Biggus]

BBD....

Does it have a HDU as well......??

[Pontius Navigator]

Actually it was the author of the article, drawing on numerous sources, that suggested that the ratio of 4:1 was wrong. Even when transports were ordered what was delivered was too few.

Read the Air Power article itself. Quite fascinating. We were so involved in procurement for the present threat that we neglected procurement of other types too.

You could argue that CAS/CDS/CNS are avoiding this by procuring for the future but that is perhaps plain wrong one way as the other was plain wrong the other ?

[AdanaKebab]

A10's are clearly the fast air weapon of choice by those on the ground in the Stan and there is no requirement for the UK to buy AC130 or similar as our American friends have brought that capability to the party.

Unfortunately we do not have unending money for defence and so will always rely on allies bringing specialist capability to supplement and enhance our own.

Perhaps we should focus more on some niche capability that our allies would always rely on us for !!!

Any suggestions?

[West Coast]

as our American friends have brought that capability to the party.


That presumes the US will always be at the party. Malvinas/Falklands wasn't that long ago.

[Chugalug2]

We were so involved in procurement for the present threat that we neglected procurement of other types too.
You could argue that CAS/CDS/CNS are avoiding this by procuring for the future but that is perhaps plain wrong one way as the other was plain wrong the other ?
I would agree 100% PN if I thought that alone was the motivation, but in the case of the CAS at least it is merely a convenient hook on which to hang his own prejudices. He is, as we are reminded ad nauseam, a +6000 hour FJ jock, with a myopic tunnel fixation on the Typhoon. Given that the pressing need in this real war is for more of everything else, but with little or no sign of anything other than slippage for its augmentation or replacement, it does not bode well. When the brightest news for their crews is the complete rebuilds of the Chinook 3s to become flyable and a job lot of used AH off ebay (whatever), my confidence in the top echelon is of no confidence. We need leadership. We ain't getting it!

[AdanaKebab]

West Coast,

Can you really foresee the UK involved in another Falklands? :ugh:

..... And our newly acquired AC130's taking off from a Carrier !!!:E

[NURSE]

Given the fighting a real war argument the British armed forces should be equipped from the 1970's-2000's soley for Northern Ireland.

But then we thought and planned long term in all govt departments as the civil service tried to look 15-20 years down the line for capital investments and returns not 1-5 year political cycle and the moving of the civil services cycles to meet political demands will stop effective long term planning and procurment.

sir Humphery in yes prime minister put it beautifuly "Politics is about surviving till Friday afternoon....diplomacy (And defence) is about surviving till the next centuary"

[andyy]

Evalu8er, I am aware that money isn't really availble to buy squadrons of armed SH Black Hawks but it seems to me to be less unrealistic than recommendations to buy AC130s!

[Biggus]

But if you lose the current war because you are too busy procurring for the next one......??

It is about balance, trying to do your best to give both "now" and the "future" the correct resources. The point some people are making, and how much you agree with them is entirely up to you, is that the war being fought "now" is not being given enough priority.

You can point out that part of the problem is the long lead times on procurement projects. You can disagree with the arguement about resources for the current conflicts, pointing to UOR projects, more UAVs, new Army vehicles offering better protection, 6 second hand Melins, etc. But some peoples personal experiences on the coal face in the Middle East make them believe the "now" is not being sufficently resourced.

Of course, to give sufficient resources to both present and future conflicts would require more money from the government, which we aren't going to get, so something will have to give somewhere. The question is what?:

[Guzlin Adnams]

The government. ;)

[Boldface]

A10's are clearly the fast air weapon of choice by those on the ground in the Stan...

Utter utter rubbish Adana. Have you been in Afghanistan lately?

I'm regularly out here in the Stan and I can tell you that the A-10, useful as it is in many situations is by no means the 'air weapon of choice'. It often takes too long to get overhead because of it's slow transit speed, and in the recent poor weather it has been virtually useless. People who advocate the A-10 and Skyraider type solutions to Afghanistan air support need to bear those aspects in mind.

I also wish people would stop referring to Afghanistan as a COIN operation. Iraq is a COIN op. Insurgents do hit and run. Terry however stands and fights, often from established trench and defensive positions and fighting them is described by the grunts as more akin to conventional war fighting.

Fast jets may be expensive, but they get there quicker and have the sensors ad weapons to engage in poor weather. The FACs I spoke to all preferred RAF CAS and/or AAC AH.

AC-130 would be very useful but is simply too expensive.

[Pontius Navigator]

Chugalug, no I think we are in agreement on this one.

There was a time and a place for concentrating on fighters in that war but, in the Air Power article it suggests that they persisted too long without regard for the future.

Now you can argue that CAS persisted too long in safeguarding the future at the expense of the current.

However having got to where we are, with Tyhoo tranches one and two secure he has time to refocus on the current. Maybe history will show he was the master tactician after all.




maybe

[AdanaKebab]

Boldface,

My comments are from personal experience working at the Died. In several TIC's during my many shifts the request came through as a preference for A10's and they were happy to wait ... even after they were offered Harriers which could have arrived sooner!
I was just as surprised as you clearly are, and attempted to educate the American individuals concerned, allbeit from afar, with some success.

Can't go into any more detail on this forum for obvious reasons.:ok:

[andyy]

"I'm regularly out here in the Stan and I can tell you that the A-10, useful as it is in many situations is by no means the 'air weapon of choice'. It often takes too long to get overhead because of it's slow transit speed, and in the recent poor weather it has been virtually useless. People who advocate the A-10 and Skyraider type solutions to Afghanistan air support need to bear those aspects in mind".

But maybe the 2 seat Night / Adverse Weather version proposed in the late 80s would have had more utility - admitedly it wouldn't have altered the transit speed problem!

[Magic Mushroom]

But maybe the 2 seat Night / Adverse Weather version proposed in the late 80s would have had more utility - admitedly it wouldn't have altered the transit speed problem!

It's a fairly academic question as the thing was never ordered by the USAF, and for good reason. In reality the YA-10B/NAW variant was poorly named as, beyond a targeting pod, it's sensors remained unchanged. The pod and second set of eyes would have helped in night ops, but would have changed diddly squat in poor weather.

Regards,
MM