Fighting Wars
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: ici
Posts: 109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fighting Wars
With all this controversy about CAS that's going aound, it seems to me that we may be knee-jerking to what's going on in Afghanistan.
Wasn't it received wisdom throughout the 90s that aircraft such as the A-10 had had their day, and didn't the USAF get rid of many of its Hogs?
Now we have people on other threads (kind of) advocating bringing back the A-1!! Maybe the Typhoon we should be buying is the one that was built by Hawker, not Eurofighter.
Close Air Support is (rightly) in the spotlight at the moment, but if and when the fight in Afghanistan is over, will we still insist on maintaining CAS capability over all others? Because that wouldn't be a case of fighting the last war again, now, would it?
But if we do concentrate on low intensity fighting, what happens when China gets all belligerent, with its SU-27/30 etc? Easy to dismiss, but with global energy requirements becoming all the more important, it's not too difficult a stretch of the imagination to see the quest for oil fostering a 21st Century version of imperialism and expansionism.
Maybe we need to spend a bit more time thinking of where the next battles will be, although now that Tone is on his way out, perhaps we'll have a rest from Labour's bleeding hearts imperialist arrogance.
Or am I just a bit paranoid?
Wasn't it received wisdom throughout the 90s that aircraft such as the A-10 had had their day, and didn't the USAF get rid of many of its Hogs?
Now we have people on other threads (kind of) advocating bringing back the A-1!! Maybe the Typhoon we should be buying is the one that was built by Hawker, not Eurofighter.
Close Air Support is (rightly) in the spotlight at the moment, but if and when the fight in Afghanistan is over, will we still insist on maintaining CAS capability over all others? Because that wouldn't be a case of fighting the last war again, now, would it?
But if we do concentrate on low intensity fighting, what happens when China gets all belligerent, with its SU-27/30 etc? Easy to dismiss, but with global energy requirements becoming all the more important, it's not too difficult a stretch of the imagination to see the quest for oil fostering a 21st Century version of imperialism and expansionism.
Maybe we need to spend a bit more time thinking of where the next battles will be, although now that Tone is on his way out, perhaps we'll have a rest from Labour's bleeding hearts imperialist arrogance.
Or am I just a bit paranoid?
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Retired to Bisley from the small African nation
Age: 67
Posts: 461
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they aren't out to get you.
CAS has been the business ever since air power got involved in tactical action. We need toys that will do it. A-10 was designed for it, but is long in the tooth. Harrier was only ever considered for it because of the short turn round out of a STOL strip near the action. They practiced hard but really needed to be able to loiter slower and more economically. Since its inception Harrier has got lots of new toys and upgrades that have made it ever more expensive and less expendable in a risky environment.
We need a cheap, robust and powerful CAS ac.
Apache? Hawk?? Tucano???
CAS has been the business ever since air power got involved in tactical action. We need toys that will do it. A-10 was designed for it, but is long in the tooth. Harrier was only ever considered for it because of the short turn round out of a STOL strip near the action. They practiced hard but really needed to be able to loiter slower and more economically. Since its inception Harrier has got lots of new toys and upgrades that have made it ever more expensive and less expendable in a risky environment.
We need a cheap, robust and powerful CAS ac.
Apache? Hawk?? Tucano???
During Vietnam days we had the A1 Skyraider which was an excellent CAS aircraft. The Army looked at the P-51 for a while in a study to see if using WWII aircraft had merit. The Air Force naturally took issue with the Army having such aircraft and raised heck over the armed OV-1's.
Along came the OV-10....nice aircraft but too lightly armed.
Then the A-10 was designed built for the task....but the fast fighter jock mafia wanted to do away it and was well underway in that process. Now we see the Hog being used for what it was designed for.
The thought of fighting the Chinese one day is very real. The thought of the RAF (or USAF for that matter) in its current numbers being effective against the sheer numbers of aircraft they will have to put up against us.....does not bode well.
Any thought of a conventional war against the Chinese has got to be one doomed to failure just through sheer numbers.
Along came the OV-10....nice aircraft but too lightly armed.
Then the A-10 was designed built for the task....but the fast fighter jock mafia wanted to do away it and was well underway in that process. Now we see the Hog being used for what it was designed for.
The thought of fighting the Chinese one day is very real. The thought of the RAF (or USAF for that matter) in its current numbers being effective against the sheer numbers of aircraft they will have to put up against us.....does not bode well.
Any thought of a conventional war against the Chinese has got to be one doomed to failure just through sheer numbers.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: 59°09N 002°38W (IATA: SOY, ICAO: EGER)
Age: 80
Posts: 812
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they aren't out to get you.
CAS has been the business ever since air power got involved in tactical action. We need toys that will do it. A-10 was designed for it, but is long in the tooth. Harrier was only ever considered for it because of the short turn round out of a STOL strip near the action. They practiced hard but really needed to be able to loiter slower and more economically. Since its inception Harrier has got lots of new toys and upgrades that have made it ever more expensive and less expendable in a risky environment.
We need a cheap, robust and powerful CAS ac.
Apache? Hawk?? Tucano???
CAS has been the business ever since air power got involved in tactical action. We need toys that will do it. A-10 was designed for it, but is long in the tooth. Harrier was only ever considered for it because of the short turn round out of a STOL strip near the action. They practiced hard but really needed to be able to loiter slower and more economically. Since its inception Harrier has got lots of new toys and upgrades that have made it ever more expensive and less expendable in a risky environment.
We need a cheap, robust and powerful CAS ac.
Apache? Hawk?? Tucano???
Grandpa Aerotart
I am one of those who 'sorta' advocated the A1 on the other thread...mostly as an extreme example to make the point rather than a serious contender for reintroduction into service...although if you think about it.....
The C47/DC3 soldiers on to this day because nothing has come along that economically does the job as well....as a result it is still being used to make money, in small nice operations, 75 years after it first flew
Is CAS a small niche operation?
The Skyraider was an awesome aircraft in it's day...and if you think about it what has changed?
Honestly I think the only essential difference between Vietnam and Afghanistan is the Taleban don't have jungle to hide in....it seems as if the ground forces have even retreated into 'firebases' where they spend innordinate time defending themselves between trips out into 'indian territory'.
The deserts are widely viewed as ideal tank warefare terrain...an A1 is just a flying tank.
Is there a requirement for an incredibly tough, slowish (about as fast as a P51 btw...260+kts cruise) flying aircraft that can loiter with real intent for up to 8-10 hrs with 8000+ lbs of CAS ordinance on up to 15 different underwing hardpoints as well as 4x 20 mm cannon and several thousand rounds/gun?
Would two such aircraft orbiting over a 'firebase' in Afghanistan give the Taleban food for thought before attacking said bases?
Would two such aircraft 'escorting' ground patrols, or at least orbiting CAP style and able to be on station over a fire fight in minutes, make a huge dent in the Taleban's ability to wage their style of war effectively?
The enemy has not changed significantly in the last 30-50 yrs...they are more often than not tribesmen in sandles toting an AK47/RPG or driving an old pickup truck with a quad mounted ZSU23. How/why has the CAS mission changed?
In my view it is not about fighting the last war it is about NOT fighting 'the next war'. Even the Cold War was mostly fought in small, low intensity proxy wars against tribesman with AK47s and RPGs.
As SAS said above...if we ever end up at war with China it won't be a conventional war because we could never win a convention war of attrition against China. It would either be nuclear, heaven forbid, or economic (FAR MORE LIKELY)...or more likely still a rerun of the Cold War where the major powers stand off threatening each other with MAD while small, low intensity proxy wars are fought in every backwater ****hole blessed with oil or other natural resources.
Give the Army the 21st century A1. Flown by Army pilots in direct contact with the troops 'in contact'.
The C47/DC3 soldiers on to this day because nothing has come along that economically does the job as well....as a result it is still being used to make money, in small nice operations, 75 years after it first flew
Is CAS a small niche operation?
The Skyraider was an awesome aircraft in it's day...and if you think about it what has changed?
Honestly I think the only essential difference between Vietnam and Afghanistan is the Taleban don't have jungle to hide in....it seems as if the ground forces have even retreated into 'firebases' where they spend innordinate time defending themselves between trips out into 'indian territory'.
The deserts are widely viewed as ideal tank warefare terrain...an A1 is just a flying tank.
Is there a requirement for an incredibly tough, slowish (about as fast as a P51 btw...260+kts cruise) flying aircraft that can loiter with real intent for up to 8-10 hrs with 8000+ lbs of CAS ordinance on up to 15 different underwing hardpoints as well as 4x 20 mm cannon and several thousand rounds/gun?
Would two such aircraft orbiting over a 'firebase' in Afghanistan give the Taleban food for thought before attacking said bases?
Would two such aircraft 'escorting' ground patrols, or at least orbiting CAP style and able to be on station over a fire fight in minutes, make a huge dent in the Taleban's ability to wage their style of war effectively?
The enemy has not changed significantly in the last 30-50 yrs...they are more often than not tribesmen in sandles toting an AK47/RPG or driving an old pickup truck with a quad mounted ZSU23. How/why has the CAS mission changed?
In my view it is not about fighting the last war it is about NOT fighting 'the next war'. Even the Cold War was mostly fought in small, low intensity proxy wars against tribesman with AK47s and RPGs.
As SAS said above...if we ever end up at war with China it won't be a conventional war because we could never win a convention war of attrition against China. It would either be nuclear, heaven forbid, or economic (FAR MORE LIKELY)...or more likely still a rerun of the Cold War where the major powers stand off threatening each other with MAD while small, low intensity proxy wars are fought in every backwater ****hole blessed with oil or other natural resources.
Give the Army the 21st century A1. Flown by Army pilots in direct contact with the troops 'in contact'.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Sale, Australia
Age: 80
Posts: 3,832
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
About the only difference Vietnam (not talking in the North where they had SAM but we were not supplying CAS to troops on the ground up there either) to 'Gan is manpads. Chimbu has spelt it out better than I re the A1. The groundpounders aircraft of choice in Vietnam was the A1 for the reasons Chimbu states plus they could operate in the valleys below low overcasts where no jet could - at least not the ones available F-5, F-4, F-100. Pilots of choice were the VNAF some of whom had 10,000 hours doing the business I believe. How does a modern jet with all is whiz bang targetting gizmos and smart weaponry deliver aid to troops in CLOSE contact with low ceilings/poor viz. In asking of course there is a limit to any aircrafts ability, just suggesting a jet may not be the optimum tool.
Taken from the AW&ST 21/8/06,
"The Pentagon is currently looking at a dedicated COIN aircraft and as a Rand Corp study put it "Insurgencies are likely to be an enduring feature of the international security enviroment." The US services are jointly developing programs for new aircraft, rather than modifying legacy platforms, to meet needs they say reflect the growing counter insurgency requirements. High flying jets would be at a disadvantage for COIN work, which requires more loiter time, often closer to the ground. Jets are also expensive to operate and maintain, and the Pentagon and Congress are looking for ways to cut costs."
The following is being put up as a contender http://www.stavatti.com/machete/m_overview.html
Taken from the AW&ST 21/8/06,
"The Pentagon is currently looking at a dedicated COIN aircraft and as a Rand Corp study put it "Insurgencies are likely to be an enduring feature of the international security enviroment." The US services are jointly developing programs for new aircraft, rather than modifying legacy platforms, to meet needs they say reflect the growing counter insurgency requirements. High flying jets would be at a disadvantage for COIN work, which requires more loiter time, often closer to the ground. Jets are also expensive to operate and maintain, and the Pentagon and Congress are looking for ways to cut costs."
The following is being put up as a contender http://www.stavatti.com/machete/m_overview.html
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Sydney, Australia
Age: 58
Posts: 197
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Is there a requirement for an incredibly tough, slowish (about as fast as a P51 btw...260+kts cruise) flying aircraft that can loiter with real intent for up to 8-10 hrs with 8000+ lbs of CAS ordinance on up to 15 different underwing hardpoints as well as 4x 20 mm cannon and several thousand rounds/gun?
Magoo
Grandpa Aerotart
Agreed magoo...but it can't deliver napalm into nooks and crannies and is less likely to be fielded in the numbers something small and single engined would be...and 'lots of' means increased battlefield flexibility.
Interestingly the AC130 is another Vietnam era bit of kit that does the business rather better than anything they have come up with since...which, imho, makes the argument.
I have not seen any evidence that the RAF, or anyone else for that matter, is using AC130 in Afghanistan?
Seems to me either AC130 and the Machete above is technology that could be crewed by selected Afghan and Iraqi pilots trained in reasonably short time frames and used to replace/supplement western aircrew....it worked with VNAF and Lao pilots as mentioned by BA.
Gotta be a popular option all round I would suggest.
Oh an I realise napalm is no longer allowed...perhaps it is time a polly had the balls to say "We are going to use it....the enemy has the option to risk it, surrender, or indeed just stop fighting and **** off home to whatever 'stan he came from."
Interestingly the AC130 is another Vietnam era bit of kit that does the business rather better than anything they have come up with since...which, imho, makes the argument.
I have not seen any evidence that the RAF, or anyone else for that matter, is using AC130 in Afghanistan?
Seems to me either AC130 and the Machete above is technology that could be crewed by selected Afghan and Iraqi pilots trained in reasonably short time frames and used to replace/supplement western aircrew....it worked with VNAF and Lao pilots as mentioned by BA.
Gotta be a popular option all round I would suggest.
Oh an I realise napalm is no longer allowed...perhaps it is time a polly had the balls to say "We are going to use it....the enemy has the option to risk it, surrender, or indeed just stop fighting and **** off home to whatever 'stan he came from."
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: my own, private hell
Posts: 109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The AC130U is a computer system with an airframe attached, not a cheap and cheerful CAS asset, and has taken quite a few years to get 'right'. The USAF quote, bottom of this link
http://www.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?fsID=71
unit costs of $190M (in 2001 dollars so add inflation). It is an incredibly precise and accurate weapons system, but still prone to target identification problems.
http://www.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?fsID=71
unit costs of $190M (in 2001 dollars so add inflation). It is an incredibly precise and accurate weapons system, but still prone to target identification problems.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
And no bang seats. Not the platform you want to fly in a MANPAD/AA environment, certainly not in dawn or daylight conditions, as the USAF found out in Kuwait.
Piper PA-48 Enforcer. background on the design can be found on the "Related Development" Cavalier Mustang link.
But you´d still be better off with a Su-25MK/39 for AWX capability and decent avionics and speed.
Piper PA-48 Enforcer. background on the design can be found on the "Related Development" Cavalier Mustang link.
But you´d still be better off with a Su-25MK/39 for AWX capability and decent avionics and speed.
Grandpa Aerotart
I bet it was the A1, still in widespread frontline use in 1971, that killed off the PA48...because it didn't, and still doesn't, come close to being as good.
Grandpa Aerotart
This one just sold for 450k...fit a basic manpad defensive suite...rewire the ordinance stores and fit serviceable cannon and gunsight...maybe some modern armour...4-6 weeks tops.
http://www.courtesyaircraft.com/
Click on 'inventory' and go to AD-4N
Fold the wings and wheel it and 5 of its siblings into a C5 or AN transport...fly to Kabul, wheel them out, fuel and arm and airborne 30 minutes later.
I reckon in a week the Harrier mates would be lining up to be checked out
http://www.courtesyaircraft.com/
Click on 'inventory' and go to AD-4N
Fold the wings and wheel it and 5 of its siblings into a C5 or AN transport...fly to Kabul, wheel them out, fuel and arm and airborne 30 minutes later.
I reckon in a week the Harrier mates would be lining up to be checked out
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Looking over your shoulder
Age: 50
Posts: 203
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
$35000 for a Hunter???? Hmmmmm new car or...........
Just looking at that list of aircraft makes me want to sell my house and live on an airfield in a caravan just flying my Skyraider and tinkering with the engine etc.
Just looking at that list of aircraft makes me want to sell my house and live on an airfield in a caravan just flying my Skyraider and tinkering with the engine etc.
NB the bit "last flew in 1992"!!
However $675K for a Sea Fury, at today's exchange rate............ Now when did I last buy a lottery ticket? That's mine if I win the jackpot!!
But back to topic, didn't the A20 Havoc used to come armed with 4 x 20 mm cannon and 8 0.5" machine guns? That would lay down a bit of supressing fire on a CAS mission.
Comes with a bomb bay and underwing hardpoints as well!!
<anorak> The A-20G had six forward firing 0.5in MG in the nose or (less common) 4 x 20mm and 2x 0.5in. It also had 2 x 0.5in in a power operated turret and a single 0.3in MG in the ventral tunnel </anorak> 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Looking over your shoulder
Age: 50
Posts: 203
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Didnt see the bit ref last flown in 92, oops, would have checked it by the time I had signed the papers knowing me.
Anyone fancy buying the havoc and rigging it for combat? Ship it to Afg and give the lads some private air support. Come on, I'm sure the book rights and film rights would pay back the initial investment several times over.
I'll volunteer for the dorsal turret.
Anyone fancy buying the havoc and rigging it for combat? Ship it to Afg and give the lads some private air support. Come on, I'm sure the book rights and film rights would pay back the initial investment several times over.
I'll volunteer for the dorsal turret.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Surely there are no longer many countries that can afford to procure and maintain different platforms/fleets for the various types of mission?
Get a true 'swing' aircraft and you may actually be in a better position. Word is (not my word) that, given a few years, Typhoon will be very capable in many areas, including CAS. Looking at the present, it has to be acknowledged that adaptability is key. A few years ago, if anyone had even mentioned that the Kipper Fleet would be doing 'stuff' over Afghanistan, most of us would have laughed our socks off. Right now they are providing an excellent and highly appreciated capability.
Get a true 'swing' aircraft and you may actually be in a better position. Word is (not my word) that, given a few years, Typhoon will be very capable in many areas, including CAS. Looking at the present, it has to be acknowledged that adaptability is key. A few years ago, if anyone had even mentioned that the Kipper Fleet would be doing 'stuff' over Afghanistan, most of us would have laughed our socks off. Right now they are providing an excellent and highly appreciated capability.
While the T-28 and A-1, and even the A-26, did a grand job in the early days Vietnam, isn't it just a teensy bit simplistic to think that they could do the job today?
On the one hand, they really were operating in an environment where the threat really did come from blokes in sandals with AK-47s - or even bolt action rifles, and with nothing like the heavy calibre threat, and certainly without MANPADS.
In any case, by the end of Vietnam, the loss rate among such types was eye-watering, and certainly way above what would be acceptable today.
And were they capable of sufficient precision, avoiding the kind of collateral damage that would be unacceptable today?
I'd love my own private Skyraider to tool around in, and I reckon I could sharpen up enough not to be a complete danger to myself and everyone else. But I wouldn't expect some poor sap to strap one on and venture into the modern battlefield, facing sophisticated AA and SAM threats.
On the one hand, they really were operating in an environment where the threat really did come from blokes in sandals with AK-47s - or even bolt action rifles, and with nothing like the heavy calibre threat, and certainly without MANPADS.
In any case, by the end of Vietnam, the loss rate among such types was eye-watering, and certainly way above what would be acceptable today.
And were they capable of sufficient precision, avoiding the kind of collateral damage that would be unacceptable today?
I'd love my own private Skyraider to tool around in, and I reckon I could sharpen up enough not to be a complete danger to myself and everyone else. But I wouldn't expect some poor sap to strap one on and venture into the modern battlefield, facing sophisticated AA and SAM threats.
<snip>
The following is being put up as a contender http://www.stavatti.com/machete/m_overview.html
The following is being put up as a contender http://www.stavatti.com/machete/m_overview.html
If not, visit the Stavatti website, take in their laser rifle, some of their other interesting viewpoints and their project timescales, and you'll realise that procuring a COIN aircraft from Airfix is an equally viable option...