Close Air Support

[Sprkt69]

1 hour ago, Stitch said:

This is a true statement, and next time around we could be facing a near peer adversary where a little airplane wouldn't be a viable option, and I understand this isn’t the 80’s or Cold War era with a near bottomless pit of money.  But the need to un- the acquisitions process is UFB.  Whether it’s F-22, -35, little planes supporting grunts is undeniable.  Perhaps if things worked a bit different perhaps we would have had a fleet of Scorpions, AT-6’s, Super T’s whatever on the ramp doing the necessary job of light CAS, ISR, or WTF ever years ago.  And after 6/8/10 years they’d be all used up and shuffled with a stick up their butts to random places like your local front gate, BX, and VFW Hall.  Money well spent to support the kids on the ground with rifles kicking in doors.          

Which have actually saved all the 4th gen aircraft from the abuse they have received and bridge the gap to 5 gen a lot better.

[Clark Griswold]

7 hours ago, Stitch said:

This is a true statement, and next time around we could be facing a near peer adversary where a little airplane wouldn't be a viable option, and I understand this isn’t the 80’s or Cold War era with a near bottomless pit of money.       

True but our portfolio must be flexible, planning for a "1+2" contingency of one major conflict with two low-intensity / irregular actions rather than 2 major conflicts in different theatres would give rise for the need for appropriately scaled and affordable systems like the Scorpion Jet, C-27J, etc... I don't think the Defense establishment is there yet to make that official doctrine but the idea is percolating.

https://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2013/01/the-measure-of-superpower-a-two-major-regional-contingency-military-for-21-century

On the subject of CAS, read this a couple of years ago on the not praised enough A-37B Killer Tweet, enjoy.

https://www.airspacemag.com/military-aviation/legends-of-vietnam-super-tweet-8974282/?no-ist

Edited August 6, 2016 by Clark Griswold
good article to read

[matmacwc]

No

[di1630]

The Scorpion is an answer for today's war, not the next.  This is this reason it will not be funded.

We do not know what the next war looks like. We never do. It's why we have aircraft designed to be supersonic low level bombers and day-VFR air defense fighters doing low intensity CAS being led by generals who grew up thinking killing migs was the primary mission.

Meanwhile after doing years of low of intensity CAS, we want to retire the jet that does it best and do it instead with a jet that costs 5x as much designed to fight the wars how we thought they'd look in 1996 when said aircraft was designed.

But instead of buying planes for fighting the current war and know at likely future war (because that's a waste), we are procuring a new stealth bomber and upgrading our nukes.

Priority problems? Anyone?

[sqwatch]

We do not know what the next war looks like. We never do. It's why we have aircraft designed to be supersonic low level bombers and day-VFR air defense fighters doing low intensity CAS being led by generals who grew up thinking killing migs was the primary mission.

Meanwhile after doing years of low of intensity CAS, we want to retire the jet that does it best and do it instead with a jet that costs 5x as much designed to fight the wars how we thought they'd look in 1996 when said aircraft was designed.

But instead of buying planes for fighting the current war and know at likely future war (because that's a waste), we are procuring a new stealth bomber and upgrading our nukes.

Priority problems? Anyone?

I have never been able to understand the point of view from the 5th gen haters. Why hasn't China swallowed up Taiwan and the rest of the geography in its proximity? Because America. A super tucano or whatever "today's war" buzzword doesn't deliver the threat of overwhelming military power. Further, buzzword "today's war" cas platforms are not mutually exclusive with a parity nuclear arsenal and air superiority, but every time someone brings up the a-10 or our lack of whatever mosquito-like propeller driven light attack aircraft, the response (at least here) is overwhelmingly some sarcastic blurb about the f35 and it's lackluster gun.

As a fighter pilot, I want a platform that the Russians will be apprehensive about sharing airspace with. As an American, I want better nukes than everybody else, and I want those prioritized over a light attack aircraft.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Edited to be less of an a$$hole

[Danger41]

44 minutes ago, sqwatch said:

 

 

I have never been able to understand the point of view from the 5th gen haters. Why hasn't China swallowed up Taiwan and the rest of the geography in its proximity? Because America. A super tucano or whatever "today's war" buzzword doesn't deliver the threat of overwhelming military power. Further, buzzword "today's war" cas platforms are not mutually exclusive with a parity nuclear arsenal and air superiority, but every time someone brings up the a-10 or our lack of whatever mosquito-like propeller driven light attack aircraft, the response (at least here) is overwhelmingly some sarcastic blurb about the f35 and it's lackluster gun.

 

As a fighter pilot, I want a platform that the Russians will be apprehensive about sharing airspace with. As an American, I want better nukes than everybody else, and I want those prioritized over a light attack aircraft.

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Edited to be less of an a$$hole

As a fighting pilot/American who has spent significant amounts of my kids' lives fighting low intensity conflict aka terrorist hunting, I'd much rather have the right tools for the job at hand than some gold plated waste of resources being misused. Listening to fighters/bombers getting tasked to do NTISR to eventually drop on a bulldozer for the 9th time is such a frustrating experience. 

We need to just get pretty much every CAF asset out of the OIR fight and let you guys train for your actual missions. 

And how many fancy nukes do you want? It was those old piece of shit nukes that kept Ivan from crossing the line and Taiwan full of freedom. I think the hundreds we have now that work are adequate. 

All this future war planning is funny to me. It's like saying that deck will look great on the house when it's done but not fixing the water heater. Yes, you can still get clean but it's a miserable experience.

[KState_Poke22]

On August 4, 2016 at 11:15 PM, matmacwc said:

The Scorpion is an answer for today's war, not the next.  This is this reason it will not be funded.

Valid but "today's war" has been going on for 15 years now and will continue for the foreseeable future so I would be willing to bet we would get lots of good use out of the Scorpion in today's war. 

[guineapigfury]

According to wikipedia A-29s cost $14 mil, and Scorpions cost under $20 mil.  AT-6s even less.  Let's say we wanted 25 jets per squadron at $20 mil per.  That's a half billion per squadron.  We could outfit 5 squadrons (4 combat coded + 1 FTU) for $2.5 billion.  That's approximately what we spent per WEEK on the Iraq war at it's peak.  If we really wanted to do this, we would find a way.

[HU&W]

4 minutes ago, guineapigfury said:

According to wikipedia A-29s cost $14 mil, and Scorpions cost under $20 mil.  AT-6s even less.  Let's say we wanted 25 jets per squadron at $20 mil per.  That's a half billion per squadron.  We could outfit 5 squadrons (4 combat coded + 1 FTU) for $2.5 billion.  That's approximately what we spent per WEEK on the Iraq war at it's peak.  If we really wanted to do this, we would find a way.

Too true.  Put them together in a light attack wing with MQ-9's, maybe 2-3 squadrons of each, and you've got a counterinsurgency force to be reckoned with.  Especially if their tactics and training are actually complimentary.

[Clark Griswold]

2 hours ago, sqwatch said:

I have never been able to understand the point of view from the 5th gen haters. Why hasn't China swallowed up Taiwan and the rest of the geography in its proximity? Because America. A super tucano or whatever "today's war" buzzword doesn't deliver the threat of overwhelming military power. Further, buzzword "today's war" cas platforms are not mutually exclusive with a parity nuclear arsenal and air superiority, but every time someone brings up the a-10 or our lack of whatever mosquito-like propeller driven light attack aircraft, the response (at least here) is overwhelmingly some sarcastic blurb about the f35 and it's lackluster gun.

As a fighter pilot, I want a platform that the Russians will be apprehensive about sharing airspace with. As an American, I want better nukes than everybody else, and I want those prioritized over a light attack aircraft.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Edited to be less of an a$$hole

No hate for the 5th gen just hate for the myopic preoccupation with it to the detriment of everything else either in available resources or institutional will / imagination to think outside the container.  The cost of the Irregular War Air Force is not so great that we can't have both in the USAF, the majority of assets geared towards fighting a major conflict and some right sized portion to fight the smaller, long lasting, low threat conflicts that have to be fought to keep the barbarians at bay.

The argument that I make and I think others is not for a LAAR at the expense of 5th gen but for the necessity of having a LAAR.  Whether you have to make an offset in the AF budget to afford it or you request an increase to the AF budget to acquire that capability is a separate issue to the requirement (IMO) of a LAAR.

The Big War may happen and we need to be scary as hell to the Russian, Chinese, Iranians, North Koreans, etc... to try to prevent it and win it unequivocally if we have to fight it but we can't keep swatting flies with a hammer.  

No disagreement on nukes, they are more important that every other weapons system in the inventory as they keep the peace in the largest way, not to crowd out others but they are the first bill to pay, really the Strategic Enterprise in whole (early warning, nuclear weapons, BMD, etc...).

I'm sorry but I refuse to believe that in a 140+ billion dollar AF, that it cannot find the money, time and resources to acquire an MDS that will not need AR during its missions, costs about 1/5 the per flight hour cost of a 4th gen fighter and probably 1/10 the cost of a heavy bomber to deliver the same PGM as aforementioned fighters & bombers at probably 1/20th the cost per mission figuring in the wagon train of logistics and operational support to accomplish the same mission.

1 hypothetical Scorpion Mission to deliver 1 PGM at

6 flight hours at $3k per hour, 1 JDAM at $25k and probably 10 personnel at $400 per day deployed cost = $47,000 per mission if they go kinetic (hopefully).

6 flight hours of a two ship of Vipers at $15k per jet, with 2 AR events requiring a 6 hour tanker mission at $15k per flight hour, 1 JDAM at $25k and probably for the whole personnel bill for this mission at 40 at $400 per day = $311,000

Delta of $264,000 per mission.  Figure you fly 15 CAP lines a day and that now comes to $3.96 million per day.  All very conservative figures for operational costs.

Use a per flight hour cost of $50k for a bomber, 1 AR event at 4 tanker flight hours and probably 40 personnel and you really save money by flying that same mission with a LAAR.  $354,000 and assuming you fly 4 bomber lines a day, that comes up to $1.4 million, still serious money.

Real money even for the DoD.  Not to mention the savings in Base Operational Support as you have a lower footprint requiring lower BOS in the AOR.  Then you get another bonus from the cost of tail rotation of more expensive fighter/bombers, another bonus for not flying hours and hours on those jets in missions now flown by other less expensive assets and you have fewer PDM events for those fighters/bombers, now you have the money and time to train them in realistic Large Force Exercise against good simulations of high end threats, near peer forces and you have the money you want/need for upgrades to said fighter/bombers, etc... 

We can afford this plane 

[MooseAg03]

21 hours ago, Clark Griswold said:

On the subject of CAS, read this a couple of years ago on the not praised enough A-37B Killer Tweet, enjoy.

https://www.airspacemag.com/military-aviation/legends-of-vietnam-super-tweet-8974282/?no-ist

 

What a great article.  If we did this for a decade during the Cold War and unlimited defense budgets, how have we not acquired any light attack aircraft in today's fiscal environment?  5th Gen and stealth are great, but very expensive for COIN.  As the article states, the guys that flew thousands of ground attack sorties were just your average pilots.  I know a place where the USAF could find hundreds of guys willing to do that job, and most now have weapons employment experience.  I'd love to trade my GCS for anything with a view, and if it had stores hanging on the wings that would be even better.  Instead, the just declared combat ready F-35 will be overseas killing ISIS to the tune of $30K per flight hour within a year or two.  Makes sense.

[nsplayr]

1 hour ago, Kiloalpha said:

Are you advocating they modify the platform? Or do you think the scorpion as it stands is sufficient for our CAS needs?

I've primarily heard it being kicked around for the T-X program, which is why I'm curious.

The gun on the A-10 is phenomenal, as are the guns on the AC-130s.  That being said...what percentage of today's kinetic strikes are direct-fire weapons vs PGMs?  I don't have hard numbers (sts), but I know what I've seen on numerous deployments.  In a true CAS situation, there is a ton of value in direct fire...when it's HVT whack-a-mole in a permissive environment, it's not really needed or even desired in a lot of situations.

Advances in PGMs plus the nature of the fight over the majority of the last 15 years has led to the overwhelming use of PGMs.  6K of hard points is plenty of bang per sortie, especially if using lighter weapons like Hellfire, Griffin, SDB, or even newer systems like SGM or APKWS

To me, the potential advantages of the Scorpion, if it's executed properly, are fairly significant.  Better FMV sensors than current fighters for ISR and PGM delivery.  Long legs for a fighter without needing AR, especially if you use external tanks.  Plenty of internal payload for other intel packages that are key in the process of finding HVTs.  Enough speed to sprint toward a fight, but stability to fly at very low airspeeds for the endless "Wheel in the Sky" ops.

Looking at it for the ONE mission is something I've heard tossed around since it can perform basic intercepts and patrols over CONUS at a much lower cost the the Viper.  Obviously the low-intensity fight is what it was designed for, for all the reasons above.  Competing in a future T-X, especially with a modified swept wing, is also something I've heard as a possibility.  And those are just options for the US.  Foreign sales are a primary consideration and some of our allies need the type of capability this jet offers at this price point even worse than we do.

Edited August 7, 2016 by nsplayr

[Clark Griswold]

1 hour ago, Kiloalpha said:

Griswold, 

Serious question. That Textron AirLand Scorpion is a cool concept, definitely worth exploring. But, it lacks a gun. Or depending on how some feel, "the gun", which made the A-10 so ferocious. Not to mention the Hog' has 16,000lbs worth of hard points and the scorpion only has 6,200lb external and 3,000lb internal. That's a serious gap. Are you advocating they modify the platform? Or do you think the scorpion as it stands is sufficient for our CAS needs?

I've primarily heard it being kicked around for the T-X program, which is why I'm curious.

They left a gun off for concerns about getting it cleared for FMS - that was direct Textron Corporate Leadership when I saw the jet and had a chance to talk to their sales team before the GOs showed up and the real sales pitches were made.  Got to speak with Andy Vaughan, company pilot and A-10 driver, good dude and pulled no punches when I wasted 15 minutes of his time asking him about the jet.  He was not expecting it to be selected for an advanced trainer as it doesn't have the power for a multiple high g turn thrust to weight ratio.

I don't see the reason why the State Dept would clear a jet for FMS if it can fire missiles and drop bombs but has no internal gun vs. not clearing the same jet if it has one but that is what the retired GO working for Textron AirLand said.

I should clarify that ultimately I am agnostic about a LAAR in terms of supplier, as long as it meets specs, is a affordable and available relatively quickly by being in production in an operational configuration.  Scorpion is not in an operational configuration yet as far as I know so that doesn't meet one of my criteria but it is way more aircraft for not that much more acquisition cost, good bit more though in operational cost vs. AT-6B or A-29.  

I don't think it is sufficient for all CAS needs, really a LAAR is a compliment to the total CAS capability of the USAF over multiple platforms.  We need small, medium and large for just the right size so we don't spend ourselves into oblivion to deliver Freedom & Democracy to some fanatics that need to be turned into red mist.

45 minutes ago, MooseAg03 said:

What a great article.  If we did this for a decade during the Cold War and unlimited defense budgets, how have we not acquired any light attack aircraft in today's fiscal environment?  5th Gen and stealth are great, but very expensive for COIN.  As the article states, the guys that flew thousands of ground attack sorties were just your average pilots.  I know a place where the USAF could find hundreds of guys willing to do that job, and most now have weapons employment experience.  I'd love to trade my GCS for anything with a view, and if it had stores hanging on the wings that would be even better.  Instead, the just declared combat ready F-35 will be overseas killing ISIS to the tune of $30K per flight hour within a year or two.  Makes sense.

 Yup - it is a cool little known history of the USAF. 

Interesting historical video on the A-37 and the BPC mission we were facing then with "Vietnamzation" - small jets just can't catch a break...

 

Edited August 7, 2016 by Clark Griswold

[Don Frank]

On the general topic of CAS, I think it would be smart to keep CAS specific airframes in the inventory (A-10 or something new). An article I read did a great job of explaining that if we get rid of these CAS specific aircraft, then we'll lose the CAS community with it. Sure there are other airframes that can do it, but they focus on many other skill sets as well. If we start purging ourselves of a CAS-minded community, then we'll basically repeat the mistakes of post-WWII and have to relearn it all once another major conflict/operation springs out of nowhere. 

Too bad CAS has always taken a back seat to the other glamorous missions tasked to the Air Force throughout the years.

[Clark Griswold]

Follow on, probably a point for another forum but the article made me think of this.

This article struck a chord in me for the difference in the AF of that era to the AF of today in that they took pilots from all different backgrounds and they re-trained and flew a direct combat mission.  They weren't concerned did you track T-38 or T-1, you were a rated officer and there is fight, we will train you and you'll hack the mission.      

The fight is different, the equipment much more sophisticated, but for mission focus & esprit de corps that could provide to the officer corps and the second order effect that could have through out the AF by seeding mission focus in a much greater swath of leadership I wish a program like that could happen again, a LAAR aircraft being the best chance of that.  We did that with the MC-12 mission to some degree and now we should do that with a LAAR program.

Think about the cultural effect of pulling heavy & OSA pilots, navs & non-rated recruits from the officer cadre,etc... for a program like this.  Actually getting them into the direct delivery of weapons or direct support to the fight, after a few years of this and the experience these officers would have, you would see as they progressed in their careers a wave of leadership that understands from their own experiences the mission is to fly, fight and win not MICT, SAPR and PME.   

You can be told something but if you discover it thru the experiences of you own life, the effect is much more pronounced, it's a part of you.

Yours truly is a heavy pilot but got to support the dudes on the ground in the MC-12, it was an awesome experience and made me a better officer for it, I had no where to go but up from there but that is a different point... if that experience was good, just giving them ISR support then delivering ISR and Light Attack must be great and I think my take away would have been better if it had been in a LAAR.  My positive take away as an AF officer I don't think was unique and I think that it would be the usual effect if aircrew from other non-CAF airframes were rotated thru a LAAR program, make it a regular assignment to get enough bang for the buck but make it available to the MAF, SOF, OSA communities.

Some would argue the MQ-1/9 does this, I don't, but the fact that it is an RPA makes 50% of the target population for this idea less than enamored with it, so not really a solution.

It would not be without some growing pains but if we want the AF as an institution to be more mission focused then more of its leadership will have to have some portion of their careers actually doing the mission (that is really for non-winged officer recruits for CSOs for this program) and if we can have that mission actually putting ordinance on a target, it would be that much better.

Just a thought.

[Lawman]

Without getting to into the SIPR realm...

All this talk of light attack low cost small footprint is great except for a few issues.

We keep talking about "today's fight" but pretending the A-10 isn't massive overkill for that exact fight.

1. In effects driven CAS where 90% of your problems are solved by a Hellfire or at best a 500lbs. We don't need 16k lbs of ordnance or a variety of dumb and non unitary ordnance to stop some tank company from pushing on our Stykers. You need a 114 to kill the IED team or that technical hiding amongst an urban environment.

2. Survivability right now is an issue. Take a look at the beating the Iraqis and Syrians have taken lately. Low slow and light weight are not places we are putting anything we own right now. The Iraqis want to fly their 208s around in that crap they can have at it. We aren't even allowing rotary into risky positions because of the political fall out loosing a bird or having another Black Hawk Down.

Given that, we'd be better off buying more armed UAS, spending money to expand the existing crew pipelines for same to combat burnout and last getting more gunships to put in the stacks out there because let's all be honest with ourselves there are two types of fires that are mandatory for all the swoopy missions out there, and stuff that flies fast whether it's got a 30mm or this is one of a half dozen missions it does aren't it. Hell let's look at arming the PGSS balloons. Put DAGR on the damn thing, or a ground launched version of Hellfire/Brimstone with the ability to shoot coded laser from the ballon to provide FOBs with organic immediate fires as a 21st century version of the fire bases we based so much off in Vietnam.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[LookieRookie]

6 minutes ago, Lawman said:

Without getting to into the SIPR realm...

All this talk of light attack low cost small footprint is great except for a few issues.

We keep talking about "today's fight" but pretending the A-10 isn't massive overkill for that exact fight.

1. In effects driven CAS where 90% of your problems are solved by a Hellfire or at best a 500lbs. We don't need 16k lbs of ordnance or a variety of dumb and non unitary ordnance to stop some tank company from pushing on our Stykers. You need a 114 to kill the IED team or that technical hiding amongst an urban environment.

2. Survivability right now is an issue. Take a look at the beating the Iraqis and Syrians have taken lately. Low slow and light weight are not places we are putting anything we own right now. The Iraqis want to fly their 208s around in that crap they can have at it. We aren't even allowing rotary into risky positions because of the political fall out loosing a bird or having another Black Hawk Down.

Given that, we'd be better off buying more armed UAS, spending money to expand the existing crew pipelines for same to combat burnout and last getting more gunships to put in the stacks out there because let's all be honest with ourselves there are two types of fires that are mandatory for all the swoopy missions out there, and stuff that flies fast whether it's got a 30mm or this is one of a half dozen missions it does aren't it. Hell let's look at arming the PGSS balloons. Put DAGR on the damn thing to provide FOBs with organic immediate fires as a 21st century version of the fire bases we based so much off in Vietnam.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

50 minutes ago, Clark Griswold said:

Follow on, probably a point for another forum but the article made me think of this.

This article struck a chord in me for the difference in the AF of that era to the AF of today in that they took pilots from all different backgrounds and they re-trained and flew a direct combat mission.  They weren't concerned did you track T-38 or T-1, you were a rated officer and there is fight, we will train you and you'll hack the mission.      

The fight is different, the equipment much more sophisticated, but for mission focus & esprit de corps that could provide to the officer corps and the second order effect that could have through out the AF by seeding mission focus in a much greater swath of leadership I wish a program like that could happen again, a LAAR aircraft being the best chance of that.  We did that with the MC-12 mission to some degree and now we should do that with a LAAR program.

Think about the cultural effect of pulling heavy & OSA pilots, navs & non-rated recruits from the officer cadre,etc... for a program like this.  Actually getting them into the direct delivery of weapons or direct support to the fight, after a few years of this and the experience these officers would have, you would see as they progressed in their careers a wave of leadership that understands from their own experiences the mission is to fly, fight and win not MICT, SAPR and PME.   

You can be told something but if you discover it thru the experiences of you own life, the effect is much more pronounced, it's a part of you.

Yours truly is a heavy pilot but got to support the dudes on the ground in the MC-12, it was an awesome experience and made me a better officer for it, I had no where to go but up from there but that is a different point... if that experience was good, just giving them ISR support then delivering ISR and Light Attack must be great and I think my take away would have been better if it had been in a LAAR.  My positive take away as an AF officer I don't think was unique and I think that it would be the usual effect if aircrew from other non-CAF airframes were rotated thru a LAAR program, make it a regular assignment to get enough bang for the buck but make it available to the MAF, SOF, OSA communities.

Some would argue the MQ-1/9 does this, I don't, but the fact that it is an RPA makes 50% of the target population for this idea less than enamored with it, so not really a solution.

It would not be without some growing pains but if we want the AF as an institution to be more mission focused then more of its leadership will have to have some portion of their careers actually doing the mission (that is really for non-winged officer recruits for CSOs for this program) and if we can have that mission actually putting ordinance on a target, it would be that much better.

Just a thought.

The instructors for the A-29 are all 11Fs. It would be a while before the AF changed from that route for a LAAR.

[di1630]

You could buy all the F-35s, scorpions and A-29s you want and pair them with A-10s, RPAs, you name it.

Simple fact is, we don't have an objective or strategy to win and without that, we just drop bombs to drop bombs.

We would be wasting the resources no matter which jet we are employing so we might as well have F-22s doing ISR at $69k per hour.

Oh, and from the rumor mill. Look for F-35s slinging whatever expensive munitions they can load on such targets as tents and parked vehicles soon to get their "combat proven" stamp.

Regoddamndiculous at all levels.

[Clark Griswold]

7 hours ago, LookieRookie said:

The instructors for the A-29 are all 11Fs. It would be a while before the AF changed from that route for a LAAR.

True, I'm just arguing for a LAAR program for USAF pilots / CSOs.  In my model the instructor cadre would have to be 11Fs / 12Fs initially and then after a year or so, graduates from a non-CAF background that wanted to return as instructors could from the basis of their qualification and experience, assuming ability to instruct & supervise of course.

 

[SurelySerious]

.

Simple fact is, we don't have an objective or strategy to win and without that, we just drop bombs to drop bombs.

Truth.

[Clark Griswold]

11 hours ago, di1630 said:

Simple fact is, we don't have an objective or strategy to win and without that, we just drop bombs to drop bombs.

2

Good article on that idea from FP:  https://foreignpolicy.com/2016/01/29/the-u-s-should-admit-it-has-no-middle-east-policy-obama-cold-war-israel-syria/

17 hours ago, Lawman said:

Given that, we'd be better off buying more armed UAS, spending money to expand the existing crew pipelines for same to combat burnout and last getting more gunships to put in the stacks out there ...

On that idea and just continuing to discuss CAS and ideas for it, ATK's palletized gun system for the C-27J... a roll on roll off system I am sure has limitations but at least it's something, the AF has got to be more open to ideas out of the normal way of doing business...

 

[Lawman]

On that idea and just continuing to discuss CAS and ideas for it, ATK's palletized gun system for the C-27J... a roll on roll off system I am sure has limitations but at least it's something, the AF has got to be more open to ideas out of the normal way of doing business...

 

You need everything that's on a Dedicated AC or it's not gonna cover it.

All that crap up there isn't negotiable to the ground force commanders that have their guys walking in the Kush with nothing more than maybe an AT-4 or 2 and some mortars. The sensors, the IR pointer, the metric F ton of available options. The Gunship and Rotary Wing fires are pretty much the non negotiable items specifically because we've gone without them in the past and it bit the crap out of us.

Along with that equipment you need dedicated well trained crews. Getting a few more part time kits to tell a J model crew "hey you guys are covering SOF tonight" isn't a smart way to do things. And it'll take tales away from their real job, intra-theatre airlift.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Clark Griswold]

1 hour ago, Lawman said:

You need everything that's on a Dedicated AC or it's not gonna cover it.

All that crap up there isn't negotiable to the ground force commanders that have their guys walking in the Kush with nothing more than maybe an AT-4 or 2 and some mortars. The sensors, the IR pointer, the metric F ton of available options. The Gunship and Rotary Wing fires are pretty much the non negotiable items specifically because we've gone without them in the past and it bit the crap out of us.

Along with that equipment you need dedicated well trained crews. Getting a few more part time kits to tell a J model crew "hey you guys are covering SOF tonight" isn't a smart way to do things. And it'll take tales away from their real job, intra-theatre airlift.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Valid point(s).  Just provided to stir the pot and keep the conversation on CAS going, specifically on new / different systems.

An ideal version of a AC-27 gunship, this CGI seems to have all the right junk in all the right places.

[Don Frank]

1 hour ago, Clark Griswold said:

An ideal version of a AC-27 gunship, this CGI seems to have all the right junk in all the right places.

We all know how the Air Force feels about the C-27...

[Clark Griswold]

15 minutes ago, Don Frank said:

We all know how the Air Force feels about the C-27...

Totally loved it, why?  What are you implying? ;-)