AF Light Air Support Aircraft

[Tank]

12 minutes ago, Scuba said:

Going back to a previous comment.  What is the disadvantage of employing unmanned assets to conduct precision strike, overwatch and ISR?  Outside of direct action missions, do ground forces care if a manned assets is overhead?

 

Short answer - yes, ground forces care.  

[theoriginalturk]

https://warontherocks.com/2018/04/trust-troops-and-reapers-getting-drone-research-right/
 

[BashiChuni]

3 hours ago, Scuba said:

Going back to a previous comment.  What is the disadvantage of employing unmanned assets to conduct precision strike, overwatch and ISR?  Outside of direct action missions, do ground forces care if a manned assets is overhead?

 

Yes. 

[tac airlifter]

2 hours ago, nsplayr said:

Valid.

Hope no one steeped in a certain AFSOC program is ever in an acquisitions role for something the Bronco would want to compete for oh wait a second...

Exactly.  Sure would be embarrassing if this video were shown to the group leading armed Overwatch requirements for SOCOM, especially if they were led by SLAYER 01....

[Danger41]

Last Caliphate check shows that a “Retrofitted commercial aircraft” did pretty okay. 

[Scuba]

IZ thanks you for your service.

 

[Skitzo]

Short answer - yes, ground forces care.  

I’d like to think it is because we can monitor more than two radios and don’t require mirc although sometimes it helps

Also we are “there” in the same way the ground forces are “there”.

Can’t describe it but there is a man in the fight attitude that comes with manned ISR.

There is a certain tenacity that says “ the C2 element we are staying here for a couple minutes longer this doesn’t feel right..”

Sometimes it’s nothing sometimes it’s a GD hornets nest.

But to the guy on the ground in either case it’s the gut feeling and connection of the man overhead.

Quantify that and you have your answer.

Intangible.

[Clark Griswold]

12 hours ago, nsplayr said:

And I'm not an experimental aircraft nerd like some of y'all are

Don't hate

[Lawman]

Going back to a previous comment.  What is the disadvantage of employing unmanned assets to conduct precision strike, overwatch and ISR?  Outside of direct action missions, do ground forces care if a manned assets is overhead?
 

Not just ground forces.

Primary desire for the HAF going in with that GF aboard is that asset is both live and able to do it line of sight to all the players in the stack. SATCOM is a secondary.

Ideal desire is that not only can that asset be manned, but be low enough in the stack and with a fires capability to do something about it. Hence why the Gunship is so tasked with that role.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[nsplayr]

5 hours ago, Clark Griswold said:

Don't hate

No hate, looking sharp! Here’s one of the same jet from a slightly different angle 🇺🇸

[Clark Griswold]

4 hours ago, nsplayr said:

No hate, looking sharp! Here’s one of the same jet from a slightly different angle 🇺🇸

Check chin strap 😉

I'm jealous... 

[FLEA]

On 5/6/2020 at 11:07 PM, Scuba said:

Going back to a previous comment.  What is the disadvantage of employing unmanned assets to conduct precision strike, overwatch and ISR?  Outside of direct action missions, do ground forces care if a manned assets is overhead?

 

I'm of the opinion SOF dudes probably don't care. But RPAs have serious limits in regards to SATCOM. Bandwidth is extraordinarily expensive even for SOCOM, and sometimes it plane just cant be bought. In addition to that, the spectrum quickly becomes crowded limiting your ability to create mass and there are some technical considerations specific to deploying RPAs that make them hard to get into some AORs, making them not exactly world wide operable, which is an essential need for SOF. 

That said, I don't think the neccessity for RPAs regarding loiter time and IPOE will go away. I'm starting to see Goldfeins point in this regard. You solution is likely an Enterprise, not a specific platform. 

 

[BashiChuni]

54 minutes ago, FLEA said:

I'm of the opinion SOF dudes probably don't care. But RPAs have serious limits in regards to SATCOM. Bandwidth is extraordinarily expensive even for SOCOM, and sometimes it plane just cant be bought. In addition to that, the spectrum quickly becomes crowded limiting your ability to create mass and there are some technical considerations specific to deploying RPAs that make them hard to get into some AORs, making them not exactly world wide operable, which is an essential need for SOF. 

That said, I don't think the neccessity for RPAs regarding loiter time and IPOE will go away. I'm starting to see Goldfeins point in this regard. You solution is likely an Enterprise, not a specific platform. 

 

i see what you did there 😉

and SOF dudes do care.

[Clark Griswold]

2 hours ago, FLEA said:

I'm of the opinion SOF dudes probably don't care. But RPAs have serious limits in regards to SATCOM. Bandwidth is extraordinarily expensive even for SOCOM, and sometimes it plane just cant be bought. In addition to that, the spectrum quickly becomes crowded limiting your ability to create mass and there are some technical considerations specific to deploying RPAs that make them hard to get into some AORs, making them not exactly world wide operable, which is an essential need for SOF. 

That said, I don't think the neccessity for RPAs regarding loiter time and IPOE will go away. I'm starting to see Goldfeins point in this regard. You solution is likely an Enterprise, not a specific platform. 

That in addition to the growth and lowering economic bar to jamming technology should give pause to the AF in groking out what the next generation of manned and unmanned systems and the right mix should be for fights in permissive, low and grey zone AORs.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/military/russia-has-figured-out-how-jam-u-s-drones-syria-n863931

Nothing is perfect, the enemy gets a vote and you will always need more than one type of platform.  Buy some Scorpions, AT-6 or A-29s and look for a successor to the Reaper for the next fights.

Edited May 8, 2020 by Clark Griswold

[FLEA]

10 hours ago, BashiChuni said:

i see what you did there 😉

and SOF dudes do care.

Just curious, can you articulate why you think this or why? I've been in CAS stacks manned and unmanned, albeit without weapons manned. Also worked in several MPCs for major SOF air operations. Regardless, I never felt the JTACs cared so much as long as the people there did their jobs. I'm not buying the "skin in the game" argument because it's weightless. 

[Lawman]

Just curious, can you articulate why you think this or why? I've been in CAS stacks manned and unmanned, albeit without weapons manned. Also worked in several MPCs for major SOF air operations. Regardless, I never felt the JTACs cared so much as long as the people there did their jobs. I'm not buying the "skin in the game" argument because it's weightless. 

 

Because when you compare the number of times a JTAC has had to bench a manned asset vs an unmanned one number is significantly higher than the other.

 

It’s not that robots don’t have a place, it’s that historically if somebody in the stack is likely to go full Bozo it’s the drone.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[FLEA]

54 minutes ago, Lawman said:

 

Because when you compare the number of times a JTAC has had to bench a manned asset vs an unmanned one number is significantly higher than the other.

 

It’s not that robots don’t have a place, it’s that historically if somebody in the stack is likely to go full Bozo it’s the drone.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I don't find any truth to this statement. It might be anecdotal but I've never seen an aircraft removed to the penalty box although I have heard rumors of it. Every aircraft has bad players though. Off my head, I can think of an F-16 that busted altitude and almost killed me, a B-52 that couldn't take an LSST after 40 minutes, and an F-15E two ship that struck the wrong building. Yes, RPAs have had problems as well. I remember getting a phone call about a guard MQ-1 that was fucking comm flow left and right. But most of the time these are training issues and have nothing to do with the platform. 

Your arguments sound like stuff you hear from your buddies or things that may have came out of the Enterprise 9-10 years ago when the community was expereincing growing pains. However, having seen the metrics out of the AOC and JOC circa summer 2016 (the height against ISIS), I don't get the impression that those utilizing them had a low degree of confidence in their ability to perform. 

Edited May 8, 2020 by FLEA

[tac airlifter]

RPAs, at this point of the war, are as good as anyone else with precision strike.  Better than many others, frankly.  I have personally booted them out of the stack, but you’re right, it was 9 years ago when they hadn’t yet professionalized.  The state of their community then was 100% the fault of myopic senior leaders not crew dogs trying their best.  Bottom line- right now I prefer an RPA in the stack with me on any mission.

regarding their utility on DA, the only germane question is what does the ground team want from air players?  If ground forces need target slant count with zero audible signature, RPAs are the premier asset.  If TAC(A) is desired, their comm suite simply isn't robust enough to be the primary choice.  I have no doubt RPA crews can train to any task, but we’re best as a team when assigned duties are paired with our strengths to offset each other’s weaknesses.  
 

there are discussions about armed Overwatch being an RPA; probably non-viable because more pragmatic options exist for cheaper.  
 

**caveat: I’m only speaking if USAF RPAs.  Other services still suck.

[Lawman]

I don't find any truth to this statement. It might be anecdotal but I've never seen an aircraft removed to the penalty box although I have heard rumors of it. Every aircraft has bad players though. Off my head, I can think of an F-16 that busted altitude and almost killed me, a B-52 that couldn't take an LSST after 40 minutes, and an F-15E two ship that struck the wrong building. Yes, RPAs have had problems as well. I remember getting a phone call about a guard MQ-1 that was ing comm flow left and right. But most of the time these are training issues and have nothing to do with the platform. 

Your arguments sound like stuff you hear from your buddies or things that may have came out of the Enterprise 9-10 years ago when the community was expereincing growing pains. However, having seen the metrics out of the AOC and JOC circa summer 2016 (the height against ISIS), I don't get the impression that those utilizing them had a low degree of confidence in their ability to perform. 

 

This isn’t “one time at Band Camp” crap.

 

I’ve watched plenty of robots be either flat booted to “padlock useless building at grid....” or piss in the pool bad enough that they are pushed back for the rest of that task forces rotation when there is any other option.

 

Remember not all of us on here are with Big Blue. Some of us live with the ground force. The guys that get all the toys are picky and they have their reasons. Whether there is an equipment limitation or other those guys design that sensor plan and there is a hierarchy to what they want if they get to pick from the whole menu. Robots aren’t at the top of it. Especially not if there is a Gunship or even a U-28 available.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Best-22]

Do you guys think the armed overwatch aircraft (whatever it ends up being) could function as CAS asset somewhere between RW CAS and an A-10 or fighter tpye? Using RW tactics but adapted for the realities of fixed wing flight.

 

Why or why not?

[raimius]

Depends on the RW CAS you are comparing.  An Apache is going to be different than a Huey.  Probably, could be somewhat similar though, as airspeeds are likely to be somewhat similar (at least if you take a slower fixed wing).  That said, some helicopter tactics aren't going to be available unless you have STOL capability and a headwind.

[FLEA]

1 hour ago, Lawman said:

 

This isn’t “one time at Band Camp” crap.

 

I’ve watched plenty of robots be either flat booted to “padlock useless building at grid....” or piss in the pool bad enough that they are pushed back for the rest of that task forces rotation when there is any other option.

 

Remember not all of us on here are with Big Blue. Some of us live with the ground force. The guys that get all the toys are picky and they have their reasons. Whether there is an equipment limitation or other those guys design that sensor plan and there is a hierarchy to what they want if they get to pick from the whole menu. Robots aren’t at the top of it. Especially not if there is a Gunship or even a U-28 available.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I'm certainly not naieve in those respects which is 100% why I disagree with you. Yes, there are weapon system priority list but those are often built on mission requirements. Your evidence is anecdotal at best which is why it exactly is what you say it isn't, "bro talk."  Being padlocked a building almost definitely doesn't mean you are in timeout. 

Regardless, noone records "how many times someone was put in timeout corner." But there are numbers out there on what asset employed the most munitions in the summer of 2016, what an asett's first run attack success rate is, how many vbieds, which was the #1 threat to ground forces at the time, were destroyed, etc... Ive seen all of those answers before and they might surprise you. 

U-28s are great when they can nail their CDE comm procedures for a given AOR. Gunships are also awesome when they can correlate a target correctly. You're using a few instances/expereince you saw and youre coloring your whole perception on that. You saw a few robots fuck up and had a conversation with some JTACs about it. Cool  I've seen a lot of manned aircraft fuck up and did the same. Most of what you elude to is shit that has more to do with crew training, expereince and familiarity with the CAS environment though. And out of the above communities which one has the shortest training pipeline, gives a weapons release card to the youngest members and does not afford CT. This to me indicates that it's not the platform that's incapable but the crews, which is easily solvable on the enterprise level. Nothing of what you point to though has anything specific to do with the fact that the weapon system is unmanned. 

For whatever it's worth, I already said that I don't believe the MQ-9 is equipped for a light attack role. I just don't think that had

Sanything to do with JTACs perceptions of the pink squishy component. The MQ-9 does what it was engineered to do incredibly well. Occasionally it has been asked to do things it wasn't engineered to do with mixed success. If you engineer a light attack platform it would presumably do that incredibly well also. If that design included the ommission of a pilot, it would still presumably perform the same, so long as it was engineered to do so and the crew was appropriately trained. 

Edited May 8, 2020 by FLEA

[Lawman]

I'm certainly not naieve in those respects which is 100% why I disagree with you. Yes, there are weapon system priority list but those are often built on mission requirements. Your evidence is anecdotal at best which is why it exactly is what you say it isn't, "bro talk."  Being padlocked a building almost definitely doesn't mean you are in timeout. 
Regardless, noone records "how many times someone was put in timeout corner." But there are numbers out there on what asset employed the most munitions in the summer of 2016, what an asett's first run attack success rate is, how many vbieds, which was the #1 threat to ground forces at the time, were destroyed, etc... Ive seen all of those answers before and they might surprise you. 
U-28s are great when they can nail their CDE comm procedures for a given AOR. Gunships are also awesome when they can correlate a target correctly. You're using a few instances/expereince you saw and youre coloring your whole perception on that. You saw a few robots up and had a conversation with some JTACs about it. Cool  I've seen a lot of manned aircraft up and did the same. Most of what you elude to is shit that has more to do with crew training, expereince and familiarity with the CAS environment though. And out of the above communities which one has the shortest training pipeline, gives a weapons release card to the youngest members and does not afford CT. This to me indicates that it's not the platform that's incapable but the crews, which is easily solvable on the enterprise level. Nothing of what you point to though has anything specific to do with the fact that the weapon system is unmanned. 
For whatever it's worth, I already said that I don't believe the MQ-9 is equipped for a light attack role. I just don't think that had
Sanything to do with JTACs perceptions of the pink squishy component. The MQ-9 does what it was engineered to do incredibly well. Occasionally it has been asked to do things it wasn't engineered to do with mixed success. If you engineer a light attack platform it would presumably do that incredibly well also. If that design included the ommission of a pilot, it would still presumably perform the same, so long as it was engineered to do so and the crew was appropriately trained. 

All things Equal the manned platform will be preferred over unmanned.

Yes *insert call sign here* was padlocked to just go look at something not even in the city limits of Raqqa repeatedly and not just by one task force JTAC. Yes, I’ve watched 9 lines punted from one asset to another because dudes training didn’t get it done or because they weren’t responsive enough to the dynamic nature of the target. Drones weren’t the primary VBIED killer over Mosul, the Apaches flying at Block 7-9 under them were. Or did they just imagine the 1100 Hellfires we shot into that city.

You guys asked the open ended question of “does the ground force care” without actually living/knowing the ground force and you seem to have definitive answers to speak for those guys. Or you don’t buy it when somebody gives you their take. Which one of us probably has the answer and backstory as to why they feel the way they do about it. It’s not hard to know how they feel about drones vs manned aircraft and why they prefer one over the other when you actually spend time with the dude who to the rest of the stack is a callsign and suffix.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[FLEA]

20 minutes ago, Lawman said:

 

All things Equal the manned platform will be preferred over unmanned.

Yes *insert call sign here* was padlocked to just go look at something not even in the city limits of Raqqa repeatedly and not just by one task force JTAC. Yes, I’ve watched 9 lines punted from one asset to another because dudes training didn’t get it done or because they weren’t responsive enough to the dynamic nature of the target. Drones weren’t the primary VBIED killer over Mosul, the Apaches flying at Block 7-9 under them were. Or did they just imagine the 1100 Hellfires we shot into that city.

You guys asked the open ended question of “does the ground force care” without actually living/knowing the ground force and you seem to have definitive answers to speak for those guys. Or you don’t buy it when somebody gives you their take. Which one of us probably has the answer and backstory as to why they feel the way they do about it. It’s not hard to know how they feel about drones vs manned aircraft and why they prefer one over the other when you actually spend time with the dude who to the rest of the stack is a callsign and suffix.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

So I'll admit I asked your opinion and got exactly that. That's fair. But I was hoping for something more empirical. Two of my best friends are JTACs I worked with in Al Tabqah and Manbij and their opinions are exactly opposite yours. So you'll have to pardon me when I don't weigh "guy on the internet" as highly.

I'm personally impressed by what we've asked the RPA enterprise to do and what they've accomplished. I do think there is value in investing in their enterprise. Specifically training, which for the last 15 years has been made a third tier priority because of the ground forces. Much of your complaints would be absolved if the community was allowed to train. 

Edited May 8, 2020 by FLEA

[viper154]

35 minutes ago, FLEA said:

So I'll admit I asked your opinion and got exactly that. That's fair. But I was hoping for something more empirical. Two of my best friends are JTACs I worked with in Al Tabqah and Manbij and their opinions are exactly opposite yours. So you'll have to pardon me when I don't weigh "guy on the internet" as highly.

I'm personally impressed by what we've asked the RPA enterprise to do and what they've accomplished. I do think there is value in investing in their enterprise. Specifically training, which for the last 15 years has been made a third tier priority because of the ground forces. Much of your complaints would be absolved if the community was allowed to train. 

RPA is a great asset. Not to specifically answer your JTAC question, but to address why the light attack won’t be drone. 
 

Manning-the RPA enterprise can’t fill that bill. They are doing everything they can to improve manning in their current posturing. Cross training the entire U-28 community would tax the system to much. Long run, it could be be done, but it would take a large amount of assets. The 18x community is trying to become a pure 18x community with minimal 11s, so it would go against that long term plan. 
 

 Hardware-satcom delay makes comms a ass pain, especially with troops on the ground. The KU delay also makes flying at low levels, as well as the “aggressive” maneuvering for gun/rockets pretty much impossible to do safely for both ground guys and the aircraft. Lastly is the requirement for austere ops. You need a ground team to land the 9 at the airfield/farp point, this takes significant time/security  to set up. Also the several million dollar camera is on the front of the aircraft real close to the ground. It’s a recipe for disaster landing on anything not paved and maintained. There are some additional considerations but this is not the appropriate medium for that discussion. 
 

I’ve flown both manned and unmanned ISR aircraft, each are both great at what they do, and have made serious TTP improvements in the last decade. Both also have their respective weaknesses. Can a drone fill these low block CAS mission sets in the future? Probably, but those technology gains aren’t going to happen in the timeline laid out by SOCOM.