AF Considering Short Term OA-X

[Clark Griswold]

16 hours ago, busdriver said:

While everyone is day dreaming about cheap planes. Don't forget to dream up some cheap munitions.

Valid point.

Smart kids are working on it:

https://www.economist.com/node/21563702

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NAVAIR_Spike

The cost aspect of using PGMs to strike a couple of dudes in a Hilux gives a light gunship, maybe incorporated into a LAAR platform, legitimacy.  

Maybe not enough to justify acquisition but a valid reason none the less.

Edited October 9, 2016 by Clark Griswold

[brabus]

We already have several platforms shooting a ~$22K weapon...fairly cheap way to kill shitheads/Hilux in comparison to the other precision guided options.  The current manned and unmanned ISR doing the HVI hunting/killing mission are very good at it.  The only thing missing right now is faster transit speed, but it's only a matter of very little time until we field an RPA that can do 350 kts in transit, problem solved.  I'm not so sure the proverbial we aren't trying to solve a problem that doesn't really exist.  I don't see us not completing the kill chain because of a lack in capability from an MQ-9, U-28, etc.  What is going to change if we introduce something additional?  Because the number in the win column is pretty large, and I think the only major, limiting factor on its rate of growth is asset availability, not a large capability gap.

[tac airlifter]

42 minutes ago, brabus said:

We already have several platforms shooting a ~$22K weapon...fairly cheap way to kill shitheads/Hilux in comparison to the other precision guided options.  The current manned and unmanned ISR doing the HVI hunting/killing mission are very good at it.  The only thing missing right now is faster transit speed, but it's only a matter of very little time until we field an RPA that can do 350 kts in transit, problem solved.  I'm not so sure the proverbial we aren't trying to solve a problem that doesn't really exist.  

I mostly agree.  Don't forget--- you don't need faster transit speed if you're forward staged.  Not super practical with an RPA but certainly an option manned platforms exercise regularly, with an added benefit of cementing relationships directly with the GFC.  And it's almost always possible provided commanders are willing to accept a little increased risk.  We've seen huge benefits and accomplished things otherwise not possible by using this approach.  

WRT the 22k weapon.... I assume you're talking about a GBU12 or 49?  

As much as I want an OA-X, but think we'll never see it, I also agree with brabus that we're making things work fine right now tactically.  Our problems are many, but we aren't in a position where if we just had one extra toy we'd turn the corner on OCOs.  We have the capabilities.  We lack the will.  And not just politics, I mean at the operational level we lack will.  The will to tear up the ISR sync matrix and think about these wars differently.  We can always count on smart tacticians to find a better way to employ what we have; even if those systems aren't optimal we can train people to surmount obstacles.

 I'm just hoping one day someone at a high level says "we've been doing the same thing and getting the same outcome for years..... anyone want to rethink this whole effort?"  That's what we need.  The balls to say that we're losing, we're sick of it, and we're willing to challenge every assumption and slay every philosophical sacred cow to win.  Because damn it, we want to win.  And hope to be part of that day is the only reason I've stayed.

 

[Lawman]

I mostly agree.  Don't forget--- you don't need faster transit speed if you're forward staged.  Not super practical with an RPA but certainly an option manned platforms exercise regularly, with an added benefit of cementing relationships directly with the GFC.  And it's almost always possible provided commanders are willing to accept a little increased risk.  We've seen huge benefits and accomplished things otherwise not possible by using this approach.  
WRT the 22k weapon.... I assume you're talking about a GBU12 or 49?  
As much as I want an OA-X, but think we'll never see it, I also agree with brabus that we're making things work fine right now tactically.  Our problems are many, but we aren't in a position where if we just had one extra toy we'd turn the corner on OCOs.  We have the capabilities.  We lack the will.  And not just politics, I mean at the operational level we lack will.  The will to tear up the ISR sync matrix and think about these wars differently.  We can always count on smart tacticians to find a better way to employ what we have; even if those systems aren't optimal we can train people to surmount obstacles.
 I'm just hoping one day someone at a high level says "we've been doing the same thing and getting the same outcome for years..... anyone want to rethink this whole effort?"  That's what we need.  The balls to say that we're losing, we're sick of it, and we're willing to challenge every assumption and slay every philosophical sacred cow to win.  Because damn it, we want to win.  And hope to be part of that day is the only reason I've stayed.
 

We are getting forward deployed Kinetic capable with Shadow V3.

The hardware as far as an aircraft is already there and the contract has already been awarded. It'll be everything the V2 is with a bigger motor for more lift and a pair of Griffon missiles to give it teeth.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[tac airlifter]

What exactly do you mean by "forward deployed?"  Can the shadow V3 land on semi-prepared strips?

[busdriver]

I thought they just sent a private out to catch it.

 

ETA: Pretty sure brabus is talking about APKWS not GBU-12

Edited October 10, 2016 by busdriver

[tac airlifter]

Ahh, yea forgot about those.  Wish more folks were using them!

[Lawman]

What exactly do you mean by "forward deployed?"  Can the shadow V3 land on semi-prepared strips?

If you can even call what is at Painted Rocks in NTC a "semi-prepared strip" yes.

Launch is easy with just a catapult. And really if they wanted they could absolutely make a barrier/catchers mitt type recovery like is used aboard ship and mount it to an LMTV.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Sprkt69]

4 hours ago, brabus said:

We already have several platforms shooting a ~$22K weapon...fairly cheap way to kill shitheads/Hilux in comparison to the other precision guided options.  The current manned and unmanned ISR doing the HVI hunting/killing mission are very good at it.  The only thing missing right now is faster transit speed, but it's only a matter of very little time until we field an RPA that can do 350 kts in transit, problem solved.  I'm not so sure the proverbial we aren't trying to solve a problem that doesn't really exist.  I don't see us not completing the kill chain because of a lack in capability from an MQ-9, U-28, etc.  What is going to change if we introduce something additional?  Because the number in the win column is pretty large, and I think the only major, limiting factor on its rate of growth is asset availability, not a large capability gap.

Or you can only spend a few dollars with cannon and rockets at much less cost in manpower than is req for AF RPAs

[Clark Griswold]

4 hours ago, brabus said:

We already have several platforms shooting a ~$22K weapon...fairly cheap way to kill shitheads/Hilux in comparison to the other precision guided options.  The current manned and unmanned ISR doing the HVI hunting/killing mission are very good at it.  The only thing missing right now is faster transit speed, but it's only a matter of very little time until we field an RPA that can do 350 kts in transit, problem solved.  I'm not so sure the proverbial we aren't trying to solve a problem that doesn't really exist.  I don't see us not completing the kill chain because of a lack in capability from an MQ-9, U-28, etc.  What is going to change if we introduce something additional?  Because the number in the win column is pretty large, and I think the only major, limiting factor on its rate of growth is asset availability, not a large capability gap.

Possibly.  Discussing this it is easy to get focused on systems (yours truly guilty of that) but this could be more of a doctrine question.

 

[busdriver]

I wasn't kidding about pilot absorbtion. That's probably the only reason this is gaining traction again.

[Clark Griswold]

4 minutes ago, busdriver said:

I wasn't kidding about pilot absorbtion. That's probably the only reason this is gaining traction again.

And it is a valid reason, skills preservation is a valid part of an acquisition strategy.

Edited October 10, 2016 by Clark Griswold

[brabus]

Or you can only spend a few dollars with cannon and rockets at much less cost in manpower than is req for AF RPAs

Absolutely, but not in the current climate with a complete lack of will to win, massive amounts of CYA, dickless leadership abounds, etc.  Tac Airlifter nailed it - when are we going to start wanting to win again and start re-thinking the way we are playing this game?  Until we stop this bullshit idea of "we're not at war" war, it will not get better.

[Seriously]

10 hours ago, Sprkt69 said:

Or you can only spend a few dollars with cannon and rockets at much less cost in manpower than is req for AF RPAs

There's risk in flying lower (MANPADs, ADA, etc). It isn't a simple decision to make. 

[fire4effect]

18 hours ago, Sprkt69 said:

Or you can only spend a few dollars with cannon and rockets at much less cost in manpower than is req for AF RPAs

 

8 hours ago, Seriously said:

There's risk in flying lower (MANPADs, ADA, etc). It isn't a simple decision to make. 

While sometimes getting down and dirty is unavoidable in war the cost can go WAY higher than imagined if and when an American Servicemen ends up in the hands of the enemy.  Used to remind (read: don't do anything stupid) my guys constantly that if somehow (doesn't really matter how) they end up in the hands of the enemy the combat power that will be expended in locating and retrieving them will be huge and take away from other missions. Not to mention the other lives that will be put at risk. Bergdahl is the most well known example though establishing if someone is dead or alive as happened in OIF as well can be no small feat with a huge effort required. As a matter of fact I've heard that assets including UAVs that may have otherwise been over watching COP Keating (prior to the Battle of Kamdesh) were re-tasked to try and locate  Bergdahl. True or not you get the idea. In my mind if I can kill the SOBs from afar where they can't hit me then by all means let's do it.

"If You Find Yourself in a Fair Fight You Didn't Plan Your Mission Properly" PVT Murphy 

[Clark Griswold]

20 hours ago, brabus said:

Absolutely, but not in the current climate with a complete lack of will to win, massive amounts of CYA, dickless leadership abounds, etc.  Tac Airlifter nailed it - when are we going to start wanting to win again and start re-thinking the way we are playing this game?  Until we stop this bullshit idea of "we're not at war" war, it will not get better.

On that idea, a good article from National Review:

https://www.nationalreview.com/article/419278/why-america-has-lost-the-will-to-win-wars

And his response to comments on the article is worth a read also:

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/411333/responding-atlantic-yes-military-has-problems-it-really-losing-wars-david-french

Not to steal the author's thunder (Iraq vet with deployment in 2007) - he hits home some major points that are some of the reasons we can't seem to get these conflicts done, but his most important point (IMO) is we set the bar too high.

From the second linked article / response:

Since Vietnam (perhaps even since Korea), the Left has done a very good job of delegitimizing military efforts (or even diplomatic efforts) that don’t end in a state of quasi-utopia. It wasn’t enough to oppose the Soviet Union. We also had to make sure that our allies were sufficiently virtuous. It wasn’t enough to resist North Vietnamese aggression. South Vietnam had to be a model democracy. It’s not enough to depose Saddam Hussein. His replacement had to usher in the Middle East’s first (non-Israeli) enlightened democracy. While — ideally — we certainly don’t want to replace evil with a separate evil, the objective of the United States military is not to increase earthly virtue but to defend the Constitution by deterring and, if necessary, defeating the enemies of the United States. 

That last bolded statement is perfect, we have mistakenly taken on too much (the military) into our mission set.  Post conflict, it is not or should not be our mission to set up a government / society that we find to be an improvement or morally superior to the one we just defeated, we are not there to "fix" the defeated so that they are better and one day thank us for changing them. 

Keep it simple:

Defeat the enemy.

Secure the objective(s).

Establish a sustainable, tolerable authority that is allied to our interests.

GTFO.

These articles count Korea as a draw, I would put it in the win column and I would further use it as a template for how to do things:

Kick the shit out of the enemy. - Done.  More could have been done but things could have gotten out of hand (nukes, full on war with China, Russia, etc.), they got a bloody nose, commander's intention met.

Don't get too ambitious, win what territory, concessions, etc. you need to call it good and secure those. - Korea south of the 38th parallel free and secure?  Good enough.

Keep your expectations of behavior realistic and minimal when you stand-up your proxy in the newly secured objective. - SK gov. was a not so nice authoritarian gov. for a number of decades, let it be.  As time went on, we slowly and smoothly got them to a better place.

GTFO - Still working on that, but it is sustainable at least and the SK's do foot some of the bill.

[Clark Griswold]

17 hours ago, HU&W said:

This is a messed up quote

How so?

[Clark Griswold]

12 hours ago, HU&W said:

Sorry man.  Reply button's hard broke.  I can only post as quoting you for some reason.  I left the post up so DFRESH could look into it from the 781 page.

No worries.  

 

[busdriver]

On 10/9/2016 at 9:10 PM, tac airlifter said:

Ahh, yea forgot about those.  Wish more folks were using them!

For now, there aren't many guidance kits in the inventory.  They were purchased from the Navy to answer a UON, there's more coming but they're a POM cycle out.

[tk1313]

On ‎10‎/‎10‎/‎2016 at 2:20 AM, brabus said:

 

 

Absolutely, but not in the current climate with a complete lack of will to win, massive amounts of CYA, dickless leadership abounds, etc.  Tac Airlifter nailed it - when are we going to start wanting to win again and start re-thinking the way we are playing this game?  Until we stop this bullshit idea of "we're not at war" war, it will not get better.

Yep, that about sums it up... Politics and lack-of-spine syndrome seem to go hand and hand a lot...

[HU&W]

https://www.upi.com/Business_News/Security-Industry/2016/10/20/Textrons-Scorpion-jet-completes-first-weapons-exercise/4691476991896/